 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Problems With the Old Testament! | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 12/5/2001 6:46 PM (GMT -6) |   | Mephi: why can't we say that God just do what God wants to do and be done with it?
Doc: Because the central thing he’s done is die for all human beings out of love on the cross and tell us over and over again that THIS is what he is like. "If you see me, you see the Father. Why then do you ask, ‘Show us the Father.’ (Jn 14:9).
Meph:
And what is that supposed to mean? Haven't I (and others) said time and again the Jesus, in and of Himself, seems to be a complex person as far as morality goes? The way Jesus claimed and sometimes swaggered with His authority. His treatment of certain persons. Etc. Surely, you have to notice this. If we are going to look at Jesus as the complete revelation of God, then let's not JUST look at the fact of Jesus's love...let's look at Jesus' overall WIERDNESS, "counter-cultural" behaviour, and concept of authority and how he used it. I can see more than a couple ways that Jesus acted similar to the OT God. I think that YOU, Doc, may have a slightly narrow view of Jesus, on the side of your "omnibenevolent" being. Think about it.
Hmmmm,
PS: There's no heresy on MY part, I assure you.  | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Triskal
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 198
| Posted 12/5/2001 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Maybe i'm a little bit late here, but i'm going to go ahead and say it: I actually like Semeia's idea about God learning. (Can you believe that, Semeia? We're actually in agreement on something.) 
A few random thoughts and responses on Semeia's idea:
1. Perhaps one could hold this belief without contradicting the view that God is omniscient and omnipotent. After all, as open theists we believe that God does not foreknow absoloutely everything. Could this not fit into the same line of thinking? We hold that God knows possibilites, not certainties. Would that not mean that God would be constantly LEARNING which of these possibilities become certainties? For example, God decides to flood the entire earth. What happens as a result of that flood is a POSSIBILITY. Does mankind as a whole return to God and remain in Him? Possibility. Does mankind remain in Him, yet slowly drift back to their old ways? Possibility. In the end, when the possibility becomes certainty, God has learned the way in which mankind responds to His actions. Agreement here? Disagreement?
2. Does the fact that someone learns really change anything about them? Doc stated that the possibility of God learning is ruled out by the verse that states God "cannot change" or "is unchanging". What does this verse mean though? I've always taken it to mean that God's divine nature is constant, unchanging. (i.e. the God who is good, will never become bad.) If that is how we interpret the verse, then how would it be considered changing if God were to learn?
I think we should be giving this idea a little more though than is currently being given.
In His Grip,
Matt
"In Him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28
Edited by - Triskal on 12/06/2001 12:01:39 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 12/5/2001 6:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia:
Doc said it right. My reaction was over the IDEA NOT toward YOU. A trigger went up in me saying "get on the alert" and I reacted with a rush of adrenaline. We've had so many deep, controversial topics on this board recently that instantly I thought, "Oh no, not another intense, controversial topic that will lead people down all sorts of roads" I felt on the defense for God's character.
My reaction was totally at the idea and not YOU.
May God bless and fill you all as you search this topic.
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 12/5/2001 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Matt said: Maybe i'm a little bit late here, but i'm going to go ahead and say it: I actually like Semeia's idea about God learning. (Can you believe that, Semeia? We're actually in agreement on something.)
Semeia: It gets even stranger-- I even agree with where you just took what I said!!  This is so great!!! That's what I love about this board-- we're fighting in the mud one minute and teaming up the next. If we drew a chart showing everyone's beliefs on all the different topics, and how we cross and overlap, it would be crazy! I think everything we need to figure out the ultimate meaning of the bible is here somewhere on these threads--if only someone could untangle it. Doc? We're counting on you.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/5/2001 8:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc, I think I was re-posting a quote that Pia} had posted. Credit goes to her!
quote:
When we say that this text is "Holy Scripture," we don’t mean to say that it is venerable, with a patina of glorious tradition, or something like that. We mean that we don’t question it so as to break it, but rather we allow it to get close enough to us to produce a break in us.
Doc quotes Semeia as saying : If He's in relationship with us, why couldn't he grow and change? I think of relationship as two people changing through each other and with each other.
Roll around the question of whether this is related to the plan of God, from even before the fall (I read Orthodox writers saying; and Modes too) of The Logos becoming incarnate. WHY?
Now, mind you all, real good, you can't put the otherness of divinity all on the classical Greeks. (but you can put the attempt to try and define it, perhaps, on the Scholastics...) But god's purpose in Christ, besides taking our sin and healing humanity and creation is the kind of fellowship we see in the end of Revelation.
Seems, Semeia, that THERE is the kind of kinetic relationally you are looking for.
What say you? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 12/5/2001 9:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Trosie, I apologize again for overreacting. I am REALLY going to work on my sensitivity to things. (It's hard for me to not be able to see people's faces--I'm very visual.) I should have asked questions. I should have asked both you and PoW, "Hey, are you mad at me or something?" I shouldn't have assumed your comments were directed at me. FOR SURE. But, live and learn. I hope you guys forgive me.  But given my rate of upsetting people with my ideas, I have a feeling I'll have lots of opportunity to practice getting better at my reactions...
I am surprised that the idea that God might learn would reflect badly on his character. I really meant it about the boredom factor. God is life. One characteristic of all other examples that we have in our world of living things is that they grow. To not grow is to eventually die. God is eternal life. It's just really hard for me to grasp what that would mean if God didn't grow. And we are made in his image, which leads me to think that we can find some clues to God in what we are like. Of course, we're puny and sinful and finite, and He's great and sinless and infinite, so we have to be careful.
It comes down to the question: What is life? My definition includes growth and learning.
What would life be like if we couldn't discover? What if we couldn't be surprised? Think about your children: what if you could only watch THEM be surprised and delighted by their learning and discovery, but you yourself could not learn or discover anything, you already knew it all, and your job was ONLY to watch over their process of discovery? I can't imagine the tedium of that. The moments of most profound love, when I have felt the most alive, have all been moments of discovery. Isn't love the most powerful learning experience that we can have as humans?
Why would a God who could learn be less than a God who already knew everything, and could not learn?
Anyone?
Live and learn,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 12/5/2001 9:31 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW--Oh fellow sleepless one... my brain has turned to mush. But my feeling about God learning isn't just about the relationship--it's about what it means to be alive. I look around and the things that are growing and learning are alive, and the things that are not are dead. Now, if you say God has a different kind of life, perhaps. But I'm assuming that when we die and begin our eternal life that our learning won't come to a screeching halt. We think of certain things when we think of perfection--being all good, all knowing, etc. Maybe perfection is eternal life. In our imperfect world all our systems eventually grind to a halt and die. God has a system that perpetuates eternally, and he's going to share it with us. That sounds like perfection to me: life eternal. Growing, learning, creating, loving, eternally. But in order to be a part of the eternal system, you've got to get in tune with God. You've got to recognize who he is, and give in to him, so that you can be in tune with eternity.
At 2:30 in the morning, this makes perfect sense to me.
Don't get mad at me!
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 12/6/2001 12:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc said of Luke 9:53-55
quote:
In any event, the passage is extremely significant, for here the disciples are asking Jesus to act like Yahweh acted in the Elijah episode – and Jesus REBUKES them, adding, or implying, "you don’t know what spirit you are of…" Jesus is suggesting that the disciples are in error for thinking they could find anything normative about the Mt. Carmel massacre in the Old Testament, now that Christ has come.
and then asks
quote:
What implications does this have for us? Jesus clearly believed the Old Testament was inspired, yet he here relegates a portion of it to a secondary status, for it is inconsistent with how God is revealing himself in his own ministry. Would we err if we adopted a similar attitude? However I explain it, are we justified in dismissing – at least as normative for us – depictions of God in the Old Testament that are contrary to the definitive revelation we find in Christ?
As I see it the source of your dillemma is quite simple. Here is the passage again.
quote:
Luke 9:33-35 " When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them [as Elijah did]?" But Jesus turned and rebuked them [and said, "you don’t know what spirit you are of, for the Son of Man has not come to destroy the lives of human beings but to save them." ]
The key is in that last statement that Christ made (similar passages are Matt 18:11; Luke 19:10; John 3:17). Christ did not have the destruction of evil men, nations or the evil world in mind at His first advent. He did not come to judge the world and avenge the saints who had been wronged or murdered during His first advent. All of that will have to wait for His second advent (Rev 6:10). Christ came to save those who were lost and one day He will come "from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel" (2 Thess 1:7-8). In other words, Christ will act much like He did with those who cursed His prophet Elijah when He returns at His second advent.
****************************************************************
Concerning the rightness of God sending two bears to rip 42 young men apart I have this to say.
Christ supported the law that He gave in the Old Testament (Ex 21:7) that said children who curse their father or mother are to be executed.
quote:
Matthew 15:3-6 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 "For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5 "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me [is] a gift [to God" -- ] 6 'then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.
Mark 7:9-13 He said to them, "[All too] well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 "For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 11 "But you say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me [is] Corban" -- ' (that is, a gift [to God),] 12 "then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do." Cf. Matt 5:17-19
If those who curse their father or mother should be executed then a group of young men (or whatever they were) who cursed Elijah being executed via bears does not seem at all unjustified to me. There is great wisdom in the law given in Ex 21:7 and I believe that what God did to those young men who cursed Elijah was the wisest action He could have taken. Those young men's character would have no doubt gotten worse with age so I believe that God did the best thing that He could have done for the overall good of the community.
I myself do not believe that the charge of murder or other serious crimes should have an age limit (Nathaniel Brazil comes to mind). Neither should the sex of a person be a reason for preferential treatment (mass-murderer Yates and Karla Faye Tucker come to mind). If a person is capable of doing the crime then they should receive the same punishment by the government as everyone else regardless of age or sex.
What say ye?
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Edited by - chance on 12/06/2001 05:10:28 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
still_unsure
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54
| Posted 12/6/2001 1:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Semia and Triskal:
I also find the idea of God learning appealing. We might be stepping away from orthodoxy but is this idea dangerous? I don't know. How far can we take it? In speaking about chaos theory John Gribbin makes the following statement:
"...even accepting a stricktly deterministic account of nature, the future states of the universe are in some sense "open". Some people have seized on this openness to argue for the reakity of human free will. Others claim that bestows upon nature an element of creativity, an ability to bring forth that which is genuinely new, something not already implicit in earlier states of the universe."
While I don't think he is a theist, his statement makes my heart soar. For some reason it thrills me to think God could create such a universe. Can God experience genuine novelty? How "open-ended" is creation? Wow, I'm getting a real buz!
Rob
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/6/2001 1:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia, now I am at the other end of the candle. (ProverbsEccless. says that my houws are "vanity.")
NO, no, no, I won't be mad at you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Coffee's waiting, kids still in bed. I'm going to bequick.
You siad two things.
quote:
Semeia: I'm assuming that when we die and begin our eternal life that our learning won't come to a screeching halt. We think of certain things when we think of perfection--being all good, all knowing, etc. Maybe perfection is eternal life. In our imperfect world all our systems eventually grind to a halt and die. God has a system that perpetuates eternally, and he's going to share it with us.
As per: "I'm assuming that when we die and begin our eternal life that our learning won't come to a screeching halt" The Dutch Reformed, and me through them, love this!!!!! I think you are right on this. (I also think that it is an entirely different thing than the second part.)
As per: "God has a system that perpetuates eternally, and he's going to share it with us." I think that the statement in true; but maybe not in the way you mean it. DOC likes to talk about "sequence." At least its not TIME. But the Orthodox, I think, talk about sharing and participation. I read an Openness Masters thesis that described The Trinitarian life as movement and change. (I don't remember it well---but it might not matter for here whether I'm wrong...I'm using what I describe as a contrast. Fair?) It is the sharing in each other's personal lives that the Orthodox describe of the Trinity. WE SHALL SURELY SHARE IN THAT, BUT ONLY THROUGH CHRIST. SHARING HAS TO BE LIKE WITH LIKE. THAT IS WHAY THE HYPOSTASIS OF HUMAN WITH DIVINE IN CHRIST IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR US!!!!!!!
Your bud,
PoW
PotOnWheel
(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ScottEmerson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 12/6/2001 2:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Scott Emerson: the part translated "Go on up, you baldhead" was a specific threat aimed at Elisha from youths (who were, by all intents and purposes, young men). God acted in His and Elisha's best interests, whether one believes in an open view or not.
Doc: I’ve heard this, and it helps alleviate the problem a bit. But I’ve never seen any evidence offered in support of it? Is it just a good guess at what the expression means based on the severity of God’s reaction in relation to it? (To say "just a good guess" is not BAD, for that MAY BE the best we can do here).
Really quickly... the Hebrew word used for mock is qalas, which is used four times in the OT, and refers to perhaps the worst kind of mockery and scorn possible. According to Whitcomb, from Solomon to the Exile, being called "baldhead" was a curse to “of extreme contempt. They were pronouncing a divine curse upon him, for which baldness was often the outward sign (Isaiah 3:17-24)." From what I personally understand, the "go up" or 'alah has two meanings - either go up or ascend. If the youths were meaning "go up just like that guy Elijah did just the other day," they were pronouncing a curse on the prophet to meet the same ends as his compatriot, which to the youths, was to die.
Again, as you say, this is the just an explanation - somewhat of an educated guess. However, according to Occam's Razor, if there are several possible explanations for some observation, and no significant evidence to judge the validity of those hypotheses, you should always use the simplest explanation possible. (This always works well when trying to explain the OT for me!) According to this, the explanation that God was "getting" the kids for placing a threat on Elisha's life is the simplest explanation possible for me.
SEC
Nobody teaches a plant to grow. If I water and care for her, she grows on her own. - F. Perls | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 12/6/2001 2:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
chance:There is great wisdom in the law given in Ex 21:7 and I believe that what God did to those young men who cursed Elijah was the wisest action He could have taken.
A thought occurred to me... the bible records the misdeeds of many of the bible characters. Maybe Elijah was misusing the authority God had given him. Wouldn't be the first time someone did that kind of thing.
I think the Doc hinted at this possibility in his entry above.
peace and love, don
A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? " | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 12/6/2001 3:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
A thought occurred to me... the bible records the misdeeds of many of the bible characters. Maybe Elijah was misusing the authority God had given him. Wouldn't be the first time someone did that kind of thing.
Uh...maybe not. Think about it. Do you really think that Elisha abused his power without being chastised by God because of it? When a prophet disobeyed God he was punished like Moses. Or consider what happened to "the man of God" who disobeyed the Lord in 1 Kings 13.
quote:
1 Kings 13:11-24 Now an old prophet dwelt in Bethel, and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel; they also told their father the words which he had spoken to the king. 12 And their father said to them, "Which way did he go?" For his sons had seen which way the man of God went who came from Judah. 13 Then he said to his sons, "Saddle the donkey for me." So they saddled the donkey for him; and he rode on it, 14 and went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak. Then he said to him, "[Are] you the man of God who came from Judah?" And he said, "I [am."] 15 Then he said to him, "Come home with me and eat bread." 16 And he said, "I cannot return with you nor go in with you; neither can I eat bread nor drink water with you in this place. 17 "For I have been told by the word of the LORD, 'You shall not eat bread nor drink water there, nor return by going the way you came.' " 18 He said to him, "I too [am] a prophet as you [are,] and an angel spoke to me by the word of the LORD, saying, 'Bring him back with you to your house, that he may eat bread and drink water.' " (He was lying to him.) 19 So he went back with him, and ate bread in his house, and drank water. 20 Now it happened, as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came to the prophet who had brought him back; 21 and he cried out to the man of God who came from Judah, saying, "Thus says the LORD: 'Because you have disobeyed the word of the LORD, and have not kept the commandment which the LORD your God commanded you, 22 'but you came back, ate bread, and drank water in the place of which [the] [Lord] said to you, "Eat no bread and drink no water," your corpse shall not come to the tomb of your fathers.' " 23 So it was, after he had eaten bread and after he had drunk, that he saddled the donkey for him, the prophet whom he had brought back. 24 When he was gone, a lion met him on the road and killed him. And his corpse was thrown on the road, and the donkey stood by it. The lion also stood by the corpse.
That Elisha misused his power is way too unlikely an explanation for me to buy into since it is not recorded that he was disciplined for it. It's much more likely that Elisha did what was right for that circumstance.
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Edited by - chance on 12/06/2001 08:35:29 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 12/6/2001 3:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's one more thing I need post on this thread. WHO OR WHAT DOES GOD LEARN FROM? Who's the teacher? If God is the student, as we are the students of life, then there must be a superior above God that is able to teach Him. WHO OR WHAT DOES GOD LEARN FROM?
The open future allows God the opportunity for experiencing (if we are concerned with His boredom) but I am perplexed on who you guys believe is above God's infinite intelligence that allows Him to learn?
Right now we only see through a lens but when we die, and are reborn into heaven, we will know ALL things. Maybe heaven will have something even better than learning! Imagine that
Curious,
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 12/6/2001 3:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
chance:That Elisha misused his power is way too unlikely an explanation for me to buy into since it is not recorded that he was disciplined for it. It's much more likely that Elisha did what was right for that circumstance.
Just another thought... since we have no record of God commanding Elisha not to curse kids, it seems unlikely we would have a record of his censure for same. Since we are not given a purpose for this act, other than the apparant that they bugged Elisha, why assume God was ok with it?
I'm just thinking out loud...
peace and love, don
A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? " | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/6/2001 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie asks some good questions:
quote:
Here's one more thing I need post on this thread. WHO OR WHAT DOES GOD LEARN FROM? Who's the teacher? If God is the student, as we are the students of life, then there must be a superior above God that is able to teach Him. WHO OR WHAT DOES GOD LEARN FROM?
The open future allows God the opportunity for experiencing (if we are concerned with His boredom) but I am perplexed on who you guys believe is above God's infinite intelligence that allows Him to learn?
Right now we only see through a lens but when we die, and are reborn into heaven, we will know ALL things. Maybe heaven will have something even better than learning! Imagine that
Curious,
trosie
I would agree with the intuition that you seem to have that there is no (strictly speaking) "new information" for God. All possibilities are available for God to know. But knowledge isn't just about information. We learn from experience as well. Now, God may have known with complete certainty (or even merely as a posibility! Right Tom?) that Christ would have to be incarnate die and be raised. Knowing this as a possibility is NOT the same as experiencing this personally. We "know" that we will die. But we have no idea what that will be like. Right? We haven't been through that yet. The parallel for God is close but not the same. God knows perfectly, so far as "information" goes about what all the possibilities entail. But God has only experienced what is happening now and has happened previously. So prior to the cross, God did not know what it was like, experientially, to forsake God's Son, and lose a family member. Jesus did not know what it was like to be left alone to die on the cross. Even though it is clear that there was an inevitability to these things at least prior to their occurring, God had not experienced death before. I submit to you that this is a new form of knowledge for God and that it counts in a sense as God "learning".
Doc, remind me again of the phrase that is pertinent here? Is it "infintely and continually self-surpassing" or something like that? The point being, God's perfection is not at stake necessarily in this. But, of course, there'd need to be a discussion of what perfection is and who gets to judge it. Right Mephi?
So, to answer your question, Trosie, God learns ultimately from God. God is creator and creates this world, God desires to be intimately wrapped up in the whole mess and thereby experiences some very new things. God learns nothing formally but much materially. The beauty of it is, if God is truly free, it could happen that God could genuinely change God's mind about something after knowledge transfers from formal to experiential. But if God isa metaphor for a principle, say Love or Good, then this "new" experiential knowledge seems impotent against such an immutable ontology. Come to think of it, my use of Nominalism is really an argument against immutibility.
BTW: I think Don has a very good point. Plenty of things get by God in the Bible without God's speaking for or against them.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/6/2001 4:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Regarding the trajectory of this thread generally, I think it is pastorally insensitive (and acedemically inadequate) to do either of these:
1. Look for ways to dismiss passages of Scripture that trouble us. Or to even suggest implicitly that this sort of strategy is "okay." Why think we have to eliminate every appearant tension in the text? Is there not something to be learned from some of these tensions?
2. Dismiss wrestlings with the text and simply say, "That's God, get used to it."
My fear is that some of what has been said here so far could be heard as dismissive in one of these two ways. I know the players involved and I assume that that is not their intention. But I do hope for better framings for this conversation.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 12/6/2001 4:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Trosie said: Who's the teacher? If God is the student, as we are the students of life, then there must be a superior above God that is able to teach Him. WHO OR WHAT DOES GOD LEARN FROM?
Semeia: The "teacher" is living, growing, changing LIFE all around. I have learned far more from being a spouse and a parent than I ever have from any "teacher". My children have taught me more than any books I have ever read or course I have ever taken or teacher I have ever studied under. Complex Adaptive Systems "learn" as they grow--not from any "expert", but from the process of growing life itself. Nothing that anyone has ever taught me compares with what I have "learned" from the passing of seasons year after year: the first fresh snowfall, the water running in the Spring, the lush summer return to life, the leaves falling in radiance, year after year, nutrients for the new life. This is more than "experience"-- life teaches. Emerson, "The results of life are uncalculated and uncalculable. The years teach much what the days never know." And, "A man is a golden impossibility. The line he must walk is a hair's breadth. The wise through excess of wisdom is made a fool. How easily, if fate would suffer it, we might keep forever these beautiful limits, and adjust ourselves, once and for all, to the perfect calculation of the kingdom of known cause and effect. In the street and in the newspapers, life appears so plain a business that manly resolution and adherence to the multiplication-table through all weathers will ensure success. But ah! presently comes a day, or is it only a half-hour, with its angel-whispering--which discomfits the conclusions of nations and of years! To-morrow again everything looks real and angular, the habitual standards are reinstated, common sense is as rare as genius--is the basis of genius, and experience is hands and feet to every enterprise; and yet, he who should do his business on this understanding would be quickly bankrupt. Power keeps quite another road than the turnpikes of choice and will; namely the subterranean and invisible tunnels and channels of life... Life is a series of surprises, and would not be worth taking or keeping if it were not."
There is no "teacher" above God. But why would we deny to God the most essential property of life?
I certainly could be wrong. But the scripture that people point to regarding God being unchanging doesn't convince me.
Still Unsure, your Gribbon quote gets at exactly what I am talking about. Thanks.
Doc, Sorry about all this digressing. But of course, if God does learn, the Old Testament would look quite different to us. And the open view depends on God changing his mind. If God says he's going to do one thing, and ends up doing another, what is the basis of his changed mind other than that in the meantime God learned something?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 12/6/2001 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc, Here's another idea on this topic. What if God has a really good marketing department, and he knows his audience? The bible takes place in time, and it unfolds, and God reveals different things at different times. I'm not suggesting that God lies, or anything crazy like that, but any good spin doctor knows that the most important thing is to know your audience. The way you package your facts determines to a large extent how they are received. The world of the Old Testament was brutal in many regards, and people would not have been shocked at the same scripture that shocks us. Perhaps God is simplifying for his audience. There would be no reason to explain all the permutations surrounding the incident of the boys because the audience would not have understood, and the audience was in fact fine with God bringing about harsh retribution, because that's the world they lived in. The complete version of the incident may include many elements that the people could never have understood. In fact, we have to consider that it may be yet too complex for us to understand.
Now to say that God learns it still may be too much to say that at that time he thought boys being devoured by bears was the best way to go. But when you combine "God learns" (and therefore may have had very different tactics back then) with the idea that God always only reveals to us any given reality in small pieces, and we therefore have to assume that the Bible is only the tip of a large iceberg of "God knowledge", or knowledge of God, then we may come close to explaining scriptures like this one that are so very hard to comprehend.
Does the scripture you cite reveal something about God that is hard to swallow? Or does it really reveal more about us, and our limitations, both in Old Testament times and now?
Just a thought.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 12/6/2001 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes says:
quote:
Regarding the trajectory of this thread generally, I think it is pastorally insensitive (and acedemically inadequate) to do either of these:
1. Look for ways to dismiss passages of Scripture that trouble us. Or to even suggest implicitly that this sort of strategy is "okay." Why think we have to eliminate every appearant tension in the text? Is there not something to be learned from some of these tensions?
2. Dismiss wrestlings with the text and simply say, "That's God, get used to it."
and
quote:
I know the players involved and I assume that that is not their intention. But I do hope for better framings for this conversation.
Hey, kid. I think yer talking about me in there somewhere, pard. So, let me say something here. My thanks for assuming the best of the situation. That's cool. First of all, I said I was "getting stupid" and that's what I meant. I didn't bother to try to reframe to suit other people. I just blew to be somewhat provocative. Second, my real problem is not wrestling with texts, per se. My problem is when I see much of your #1 without even considering the possibility of things along the lines of what I'm saying. This is distinct from saying "This is just Bible, son, deal with it." like I mentioned in the thread about dispensationalism. What I am essentially asking is (surprise, surprise) about the PRESUPPOSITIONS that people are taking coming to this whole thing. In abductions (or whatever you want to call it) presuppositions are what determine what hypotheses are generally followed up on and taken seriously. If people have in their minds "God just COULDN'T be THAT way." or any type of thinking like that without decent reasoning, then all voices are not really being heard. As asinine as I honestly think some of the stuff on this board may be at times when I initially hear it, I would be an idiot not to truly take it into consideration given the evidence. It may be a truly workable thought for TRULY workable reasons. It seems to me that many people just don't want to subscribe to what people like me suggest and try their darnedest to get away from it without really detailing WHY...and I don't like that.
So, to sum, I just want people to really think about WHY they are wrestling with these texts to the extent that they are. Does it have to do primarily with exegetical concerns...or preconceived notions about things?
Said my piece.
Holla,
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 12/6/2001 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Meph. That clears it up nicely, on one end of my concerns.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 12/6/2001 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Say, Modes. Have I told you "I love you" today?
I LOVE YOU, MAAAAAAN!
Don't feel left out, y'all. I love all y'all, too. | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 12/6/2001 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Regarding the trajectory of this thread generally, I think it is pastorally insensitive (and acedemically inadequate) to do either of these:
1. Look for ways to dismiss passages of Scripture that trouble us. Or to even suggest implicitly that this sort of strategy is "okay." Why think we have to eliminate every appearant tension in the text? Is there not something to be learned from some of these tensions?
2. Dismiss wrestlings with the text and simply say, "That's God, get used to it."
My fear is that some of what has been said here so far could be heard as dismissive in one of these two ways. I know the players involved and I assume that that is not their intention. But I do hope for better framings for this conversation.
Modes, thanks for this. Both Job and Abraham recognized they were mere"dust and ashes" before God, but both of them boldly questioned God’s character when they encountered God in a way that seemed to contradict God’s self-revelation. When we engage God (dismissal and resignation are not sufficiently engaged) with tough questions about God’s character, we may not get answers—we get GOD. pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
I think we are in “violent agreement” most of the time. § Iconoclast | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 12/6/2001 8:48 AM (GMT -6) | | TOM! Where are you? pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
I think we are in “violent agreement” most of the time. § Iconoclast | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 12/6/2001 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Chance cites Matthew 15:3-6 ("For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' ) and Mark 7:9-13 ("For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.') which seem to present Jesus chastising Jewish leaders for "going light" on these commands.
On this basis chance says: "I myself do not believe that the charge of murder or other serious crimes should have an age limit (Nathaniel Brazil comes to mind). Neither should the sex of a person be a reason for preferential treatment (mass-murderer Yates and Karla Faye Tucker come to mind). If a person is capable of doing the crime then they should receive the same punishment by the government as everyone else regardless of age or sex."
Doc: I personally find this (the idea, not Chance!) revolting. Yet I have to give it to Chance that the logic follows – if Jesus was indeed validating these laws for today. In fact, Chance himself BACKS OFF the text, for the passage stipulates stoning kids not just for murder, but for insulting there parents!!!!
Anyone want to do some exegesis here on what Jesus was getting at? One problem that comes to mind is that Jesus elsewhere did NOT carry out the law (e.g. the woman [and the man] caught in the act of adultery SHOULD have gotten stoned) and in fact broke the law (e.g. picking food on the Sabaath). Why so harsh on insulting kids? Should kids be getting stoned today?
Help please.
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
| 121 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:59 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 |
|
|