 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Question about the Open View and The Future | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/20/2004 4:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
PoW: Jo-anne, I have to write quickly because Tom hates my observations and I hear him coming in through the phone wire.
Tom:  See JoAnne? I told you we'd have to be patient with PoW.
I don't "hate" your observations PoW. Not even close.
Peace!
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2004 6:47 PM (GMT -6) | | JoAnne: If I make one choice; a choice that is not the Father's best for me - how much do you think that impacts the future. Can I "undo" God's best for other people because of one choice that I make?
Tom: Every choice we make has consequences. Some choices have greater consequences than other choices, including those we make that aren’t best for us and aren’t in line with God’s purposes for us. And our choices have consequences for those we have influence over, like our children. And our choices CAN unfortunately thwart God’s best for others. A mother who murders her infant is slamming shut the door on God’s purposes for that child. God presumably had better things planned for the child. But a mother who abuses her child also adversely impacts God’s purposes for that child (which never included being abused by his mother), but since the child will grow and become a responsible owner of its own choices, God is able to make something wonderful from the wreckage of abuse. I was just listening to a lady tonight who said that after her father walked out on the family when she was just three, her step-father abused her from when she was four until she was fifteen. Today she’s a pastor’s wife, loving and successful mother, and counsels hurting people.
JoAnne: My previous tag line was "Choice by choice I affect eternity." How much do you believe that is true? Do we really impact eternity that much - even by our day to day choices?
Tom: How else if not by our day to day choices?
JoAnne: Another question: Why are people so threatened by the Open View? Why is it sooo ofensive to them?
Tom: Why not start a new thread and ask that question? See what they say. I don’t know.
JoAnne: …somewhere in my reading…I read a quote similar to this: "God knows each and every possibility, as though it were the only possibility". I wish I could remember where I saw this, but what really amazed me; what really amazes me about this thought that you just shared above is His ability to respond perfectly, and without hesitation to an open future. When I realized that, I realized how creatively sovereign He is. Sovereignty took on a whole new meaning for me.
Tom: Bottom of the ninth. Bases loaded. Grand slam! Out of the park! Exactamundo!
JoAnne: Tom, this is where things get a little "dicy" for people. There is some comfort in believing that God knows exactly what will happen, when it will happen - that He has EVERYTHING under control. I hear that phrase almost every week in church when someone prays. To share something different is like taking a child's carefully constructed tower of blocks, and knocking it over, right before their eyes. How do you share this without destroying someone's sense of security, of comfort...?
Tom: I know we think that unconditional control and the knowledge God gains from it about the future SHOULD be comforting. But I have yet to be walked through it logically. Just how does that comfort us? Bad things happen to good people. People who experience God powerfully, walk with God faithfully, testify to the same assurance you and I testify to about their salvation but shipwreck themselves and their faith, etc. etc.. God knew it all ahead of time and determined it all for reasons only he knows. Your children might be determined to go to heaven. They might be not. You might be determined to persevere or (as Calvin taught) you might be given by God a false sense of security when you’re in fact determined for hell. So even if you believe with all your heart and evidence every sign of genuine faith and salvation you could still end up as toast. Given this kind of unconditional determination of all things, just what “comfort” can logically be drawn from it?
It’s very difficult to challenge people on this. I think a person has to be ready. They have to be hungry for something that their present worldview doesn’t explain. If someone is asking questions, go for it. If they’re not, a hint or two will tell you whether or not they’re open to dialogue.
JoAnne: God does transcend time right? He relates to us in time, but is not limited by time as we are. Another abstract that I'm trying to grasp. What do you mean by God being "temporal?"
Tom: I think God transcends (is unaffected by) the ravages of time that affect us. But I don’t think that means God exists outside of time at all. I’m open to the possibility that God was “timeless” before he created the universe (big discussion on that one, not important now), but since creating the universe I’d argue he is temporal, that is, he exists in time. Temporal means “having to do with time” or “existing in time” while atemporal is the contrary of this, i.e., timeless or outside of time. Many good theologians and great Bible teachers can be found on BOTH the temporal and atemporal views of God. It doesn’t decide whether you go to heaven or not!  What too often happens is that those who believe God is atemporal (timeless) and those who believe God is BOTH temporal (in time) and timeless use God’s timelessness to explain HOW it is God is able to know everything that will happen (he lives in the "eternal now"; he sees past, present, and future timelessly). This view is on its way down the tubes, and not too soon.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/21/2004 2:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
he lives in the "eternal now"; he sees past, present, and future timelessly). This view is on its way down the tubes, and not too soon.
Naw it's not going down the tube Tom. It just going to be understood in a slightly different way that no there is no future for God to be in for God to know but once the future unfolds he kicks down the limitation that he didn't know by retrograde time which most men of science believe would exist above the speed of light. It still brings about the same conclusion that God knows the end from the beginning, and that he is the first and the last, and the Alpha and the Omega. The only place the classical view of theism has failed has been in believing that the future is a real place that God is in now. They have thought that it is putting a limitation on God to say that he's not in the future but that would be like asking God the question what's the weather like today in the land of the Wizard of Oz?
Whats it like? It doesn't exist. But once it does exist however then God can do something about that...oh yes he can...science even declares according to scientific theory an above the speed of light would provide the capacity for retrograde time. My view mixes classical theism and open theism together and brings peace between the two views. You'll recall the story of Solomon when two women brought the baby and said itwas both theirs? What did Solomon do? He gave orders to cut the baby in half. Both of them were going to go away having apart of getting what they wanted. I think God will say, classical theism you're wrong but you're also right in a sense but open theism you're right but you're also wrong in a sense. Classical Open Theism will be the next way people will eventually see things and hey what do you know! ...that's the view that im putting forth.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/21/2004 3:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Bobber: Naw it's not going down the tube Tom. It just going to be understood in a slightly different way that no there is no future for God to be in for God to know but once the future unfolds he kicks down the limitation that he didn't know by retrograde time which most men of science believe would exist above the speed of light.
Tom: I hear the sound of a flushing toilet!  Down the tubes.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/21/2004 3:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Bobber: Naw it's not going down the tube Tom. It just going to be understood in a slightly different way that no there is no future for God to be in for God to know but once the future unfolds he kicks down the limitation that he didn't know by retrograde time which most men of science believe would exist above the speed of light.
Tom: I hear the sound of a flushing toilet! Down the tubes.
Tom, Bobber's "most men of science" not convincing you? 
Tom, Bobber's "Jesus is the first and last letter of the Greek alphabet" not convincing you?
Hey bobber, last night I read that any object's mass approaches infinity as it's speed approaches the speed of light. So the mass of all that information God is "blasting back" above the speed of light is infinitely larger than infinity, effectively blowing up the universe.
So you have God, blasting back an infinite amount of data whose mass (infinite raised by infinity) is larger than the universe.
Live long and prosper <gives Star Commander Bobber the Vulcan salute>
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/21/2004 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Jo-Anne,
Just a few thoughts...
First and foremost, most Christians (and I mean almost all of them) have been taught that in order for God to be omniscient He MUST know the future...ALL of it, exhaustively. But this is not what makes one omniscient, and THAT is the catch to this whole thing. You see, an omniscient being must simply "know all truths and believe no falsehoods." Well, what does that mean? It means that if something is or is not, God knows it. If something is true, God knows it. If something is false, God knows it. AND it means if something is a "maybe," that is, a "it might or might not happen," then God knows it as such. This covers EVERYTHING regarding omniscient powers that a being must have in order to be omniscient.
Most (again, almost all) Christians think that if God does not know the future--every single thing about it--then He can't be omniscient, and fear begins to rise in many Christians. After all, what kind of God are we serving if He doens't know the future exhaustively? And so, there are theological, logical and philosphical argumentations put foward to prove that God both knows the future exhaustively and that He can't be omniscient if He doesn't know the future exhaustively. But you will find something peculiar about these lines of reasoning: most all of these Christians who go to this extent to prove God both knows the future exhaustively and MUST know it exaustively in order to be omniscient do NOT go to these extents to prove that God is omnipotent! Here's what I mean.
Can God completely cease to exist and yet not cease to exist? Can He make square circles? Can he make a single person married at the same time that person is single? Maybe you're thinking "Ah, that's common sense stuff. It would be ridiculous to say that God must be able to cease to exist and yet exist at the same time." I would agree! The point is that it seems to be almost common sense that God does not have to prove Himself illogical--like being able to be God and not God at the same time in order to be omnipotent. It's kind of obvious, isn't it? Well, then, why don't we think like this about God's omniscient: He doesn't have to know a future that doesn't even exist, for pete's sake, in order to be omniscient. There's simply nothing to know, so why burden God with having to know what doesn't even exist in or order to be omniscient. Isn't THAT kind of illogical? We certainly do not force this kind of illogical stuff on God in order to consider Him to be omnipotent, do we! Well, all kinds of elaborate space-time theories and theological concoctions are put foward to try and prove that God does know the future...all of it. And it's very distracting to the Christian who's trying to make sense out of all this, particularly when the same energy is seldom put into fighting for the illogical demands upon God in order for Him to be omnipotent. Oh, some do try to prove that God must be able to do EVERYTHING in order to be omnipotent; however, it is easier to see that it is ridiculous to try and prove that God MUST be able to do EVERYTHING in order to be omnipotent than it is to see that God does not have to know the future exhaustively in order to be omniscient.
Moving on...
God knew that He would bring the Christ into the world to die for our sins. But we are never told the details of how God would do this. And, most certainly, we are never told that the details were EXAUSTIVELY known by God, "exhaustively," that is, in that we mean God could sit back in a theater and watch it all happen before the world was even created. Yes, God did know there would be details necessary to bring Jesus into the world, and He knew the truth of those details since eternity past, but that's not the same thing as saying it was EXHAUSTIVELY known.
Consider the this. We're all sitting in God's Great Theater. We've got our popcorn and drinks and we're just about ready to watch the show. COOL, some cartoons first! (What ever happen to those days, eh!) The movie starts. Wow! It's a beginning-to-end of world history--every single emotion, thought, act, word, feeling, prayer...everything. I mean, EVERTHING is right before our eyes; everthing we have done, are doing (including sitting there in the theater watching ourselves on screen) and what we will do in the future. Everything...EVERYTHING (am I getting that point through?). So, we watch it all happen, and after it's over, God says to us all, "Well, go out, now, and live. You will live exactly as you saw it happen here, for I know the future exhaustively. It is, therefore, settled. It cannot be changed because all that stuff's been taken into account from eternity past. Well, off with you now." What do you think would really happen after that? How would we live? Exactly...and I do mean exactly...as we watched it, or differently?
Here's another scenario. The Lord shows up to you and says, "Jo-Anne, I know exactly what you're going to do in the next sixty seconds Well, I know exactly what you're going to do for all eternity, but let me just tell you what you'll do in the next sixty seconds. In the next minute, you will blink thirty-two times, move you head this and that way and scratch your shoulder." And so, the Lord sits back in His chair (next time give Him the more comfortable one, will you, Jo-Anne!) and He you...well, you just sit there stunned! You barely breath. As a matter of fact, you fall out of your chair two or three times trying to get your head in order. I mean, man, you're seeing the Lord, and you didn't even offer Him your most comfortable chair!
Well, sixty seconds go by and you've not done ANY of those things He said you'd do. As a matter of fact, you were even bent on not blinking lest He disappear from your site. And after the minute's up, the Lord says to you, "Well, I knew you'd not blink at me. and I knew you'd fall out of your chair three times; I know the future exhaustively, remember? And I cannot believe how uncomfortable this chair is!"
Well, what's happened here (other than the fact that the Lord now has a back ache!)? You didn't have to do ANY of those specific things that the Lord told you you would do. But you say, "Wait, Starkman. If I was not going to blink at all, God would have told me so." Ah, but there's the catch (and watch this closely): at what point in time, Jo-Anne,is EVERYTHING you will ever do known and thus settled? Is it eternity past? Is it a second before you do it? You see, there ISN'T any point in time where it can be said, "There! It's settled: EVERTHING that Jo-Anne will do is now known." That simply cannot be, because the minute you are told what you will do, you can change it. Not everything, obviously, but many things. And if the Lord says, "Well, I knew you'd change what I told you you'd do," you can simply ask, "Well, why didn't you tell me that then?" Some people will say, "Well, the Lord simply won't tell you what you will do so that you'll do what He knows you will do." And you can see how silly that is--God has to keep from talking to you about your future or you'll change it!
Unless you are being forced to do those things God said you would do, you can choose, in many, but not all cases, to do differently. Why is this so? Because you have what we call libertarian freewill. You aren't TOTALLY free, but one thing's for sure, and that is you are free enough to not have to do several things unless you are being forced to do so against your own will.
There are things that God knows about us that make it remarkably simple for Him to predict what we will do in certain situations, like Jesus knowing that Peter would deny Him. Though Jesus told Peter he would deny Him, this doesn't mean Peter wasn't free not to deny the Lord, it just means that Peter's heart was very clear before the Lord. Jesus letting Peter in on a little secret: "Peter, you are not as strong as you think you are; I see your heart quite clearly. You do not yet see your heart clearly." And if God hast to prove his point to a stubborn individual, God can and will arrange for circumstances to force the issue and show what the person is really made of. And that is why we see Jesus telling Peter, though he desperately loved the Jesus, that he would deny Him three times. (As far as "how" God brings it about that there would be three times is neither here nor there. God knows the details, what will happen and what must happen. God is, after all, omnipotent and able to bring about those circumstances that force Peter to show his heart. Don't get bogged down in those details so easily. That's the easy part for God to work out!)
Think...think...think...very carefully about these two scenarios I've given here: the idea of an exhaustively known future, so exhaustively known that we could all watch it before our very eyes; and your freedom being of significant issue when it comes to the future. These issues make it illogical to hold both to an exhaustively known future and to the idea that God must know the future exhaustively in order to be omniscient, just as it would be illogical to insist that God must be able to cease to be God and yet be God in order for God to be omnipotent.
When we read Scripture, we see God dealing with man in the most natural and realistic manner. He negotiates, He changes His mind. I mean, if I were Abraham and God showed up at my door to discuss destroying the land where my nephew lives, and we negotiate about saving him, I'm not going to end the conversation by asking God why He just didn't tell me He was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorah but save my nephew and his family since he already knew He would. Further, if God says to me, "Pack it up, bud, because you're sick and you're going to die," (like He did with Hezekiah) and I pray about it and God decides to heal me, I'm not going to end the issue by asking God why He just didn't heal me in the first place since He new exhaustively that I would pray about it. Often times Christians will respond to this example by saying that though God knows the future exhaustively, He doesn't act like He knows it that way when He interacts with mankind. Really now! First, if this were so, God is being deceptive, and second, who's He fooling if we already know that He knows the future exhaustively? I mean, we're all wasting time--God included--if both God and we have to pretend that God doesn't know the future. What kind of relationship is that? It's not. It simply is not. it's not the way God reveals Himself in Scripture. Reality--both in Scripture and in life--is reality.
Well, I've gone on long enough. I hope this helps some.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/21/2004 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | |
Thank you John,
(Jo-Anne) Thanks John. I think this makes the most sense to me. God is not mysterious to us, but some things like this remain a mystery.
(John) Even worse, I've heard classical Arminian pastors say (in almost the same breath) such ridiculous things as, "Prayer changes things...and God is in CONTROL!!!!" A more deterministic thing could hardly be said.
(Jo-Anne) John, I hear this every week in prayer time, yet people cry out to God to move, to change things. This has to be confusing for people. The only thing I can think of - is that people just don't think about what they're saying, or pass over it as "mystery."
It doesn't seem to me that the Calvinistic approach "works" in a real, living, applicable way, although perhaps that's what I was - a confused blend of calvin,arminian,opentheist...what a blend, and I'm still probably a blend, but a less confused one.
(John) Probably the only difficulty I had at first was shedding the whole "God is above time" concept. Once that imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God had been cast down, the rest of the Open View was a perfectly natural fit for me.
(Jo-Anne) John, can you explain to me exactly what you mean by God being above time, and how that is a problem for open theism? I think I have an idea what you're saying, but am not sure. If God transcends time (knows the beginning from the end - and He does in some ways right; the future is partly settled - does that mean that He can't relate to us as well "in time." I guess you can tell I'm confused, so I'll quit here.
(John) As far as sharing this wonderful view with others, I find that it is best to stay away from hot-button issues at first, such as "God doesn't know something." Or, if you do want to share that point, start by showing that everyone agrees that there are many things God does not know (like 2 + 2 = 5, or that right is left and up is down, for instance).
(Jo-Anne) Right. That would raise some eyebrows! Then, they would really think my "cheese had slipped off my cracker"! But you're right; saying that God does not know something, is definitely a "hot button".
(John) Another point I find that is an easy sell with most people is to talk about the virtually unanimous Christian belief that "prayer changes things." I like to use biblical examples when explaining this point. Show the logical contradiction of the future being 100% certain if in fact "prayer changes things" is true. This is an appeal to intuition and to the Bible, for both strongly affirm that prayer changes things and that we can make a difference in history, for better or for worse.
(Jo-Anne) Thanks John. Good idea.
(John) Also, I have found Dr. Boyd's illustration of the contents of a "History of the World" book, written in say, 1492 A.D. to be helpful. If anything in the future is in fact a "possibly this or possibly that," then the book is not complete prior to the actualization of such possibilities in history or the book is written in erasable ink. In either case, the future cannot be "written in stone," if in fact the future contains ANY possibilities.
(Jo-Anne) Interesting. I'll have to mull over that one.
(John) Finally, I find the emphasis on real possibilities is crucial to an understanding of the OV and communication of this to others. In the Open View, God does not know LESS than in the classical view of foreknowledge--He knows infinitely MORE, because He knows all the possibilities from possibilities, etcetera ad infinitum, in addition to knowing all the certainties within the realm of the future. (In the classical view, God knows far less than in the OV, for in the classical view there is only ONE sequence of events in history, with no real possibilities at all.
(Jo-Anne) I would never have thought of comparing his knowledge in the two views. Thank you. Is the "classical view" referring to Calvinism, or Arminianism or...?
(John) An important followup to this last point about the virtually infinite possibilities God knows is that in light of God's infinite INTELLIGENCE, he is able to deal with each and every possibility as if it were the only thing he had to think about (for His intelligence is infinite).
(Jo-Anne) I love that quote. He is infinitely and creatively sovereign. That makes me stand in awe and wonder. What an amazing Father we have. Do you remember where you read this John? Was it one of Dr Boyd's books?
(John) Also, it helps to show how the traditional view of foreknowledge really does nothing to make us more secure in God. If God knows with a certainty that I am going to be shot and killed at a convenience store tomorrow, neither God nor I can change it, and it really is in a sense "the will of God." Personally, I don't see how anyone can find comfort in such a powerless view of God's knowledge.
(Jo-Anne) Excellent point John. I wouldn't have thought about that either. This thread is very helpful to me. I'll share this with my husband. He does not embrace this view - at all (but he no longer refers to it, and even me as "wacked").
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/21/2004 10:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Tom,
Tom: Every choice we make has consequences. Some choices have greater consequences than other choices, including those we make that aren’t best for us and aren’t in line with God’s purposes for us. And our choices have consequences for those we have influence over, like our children. And our choices CAN unfortunately thwart God’s best for others. A mother who murders her infant is slamming shut the door on God’s purposes for that child. God presumably had better things planned for the child. But a mother who abuses her child also adversely impacts God’s purposes for that child (which never included being abused by his mother), but since the child will grow and become a responsible owner of its own choices, God is able to make something wonderful from the wreckage of abuse. I was just listening to a lady tonight who said that after her father walked out on the family when she was just three, her step-father abused her from when she was four until she was fifteen. Today she’s a pastor’s wife, loving and successful mother, and counsels hurting people.
(Jo-Anne) Thank you Tom. I needed to hear this. Your answer is an answer to prayer.
Tom: I know we think that unconditional control and the knowledge God gains from it about the future SHOULD be comforting. But I have yet to be walked through it logically. Just how does that comfort us? Bad things happen to good people. People who experience God powerfully, walk with God faithfully, testify to the same assurance you and I testify to about their salvation but shipwreck themselves and their faith, etc. etc.. God knew it all ahead of time and determined it all for reasons only he knows. Your children might be determined to go to heaven. They might be not. You might be determined to persevere or (as Calvin taught) you might be given by God a false sense of security when you’re in fact determined for hell. So even if you believe with all your heart and evidence every sign of genuine faith and salvation you could still end up as toast. Given this kind of unconditional determination of all things, just what “comfort” can logically be drawn from it?
(Jo-Anne) Tom, I agree with you, but it seems like the open view is most often pitted against the extreme calvinistic view. What about arminianism? Is there a middle ground?
(Tom) It’s very difficult to challenge people on this. I think a person has to be ready. They have to be hungry for something that their present worldview doesn’t explain.
(Jo-Anne) And, that's where I was at. I'm so glad that I had a friend who was brave enough to share it with me. And he did exactly what you suggested: He asked me some questions, and from my response gave me "The God of The Possible."
(Tom) It doesn’t decide whether you go to heaven or not! What too often happens is that those who believe God is atemporal (timeless) and those who believe God is BOTH temporal (in time) and timeless use God’s timelessness to explain HOW it is God is able to know everything that will happen (he lives in the "eternal now"; he sees past, present, and future timelessly). This view is on its way down the tubes, and not too soon.
(Jo-Anne) I always thought this view was supported scripturally. What about the John 1:1 passage that talks about Jesus being the Word, being in the beginning with God, then becoming flesh and dwelling among us? Doesn't that mean He is "timeless" or that He transcends time?
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2004 10:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Joanne: Doesn't that mean He is "timeless" or that He transcends time?
PoW: I'm interested in Tom's upcoming answer.
But for now, let me make a pair of observations, that:
First, "timeless" is connected by definition to time, and is therefore not enough of a contrast to "in time" (The latter of which I hope we all agree; as the pagan Greeks would not!), and "transcends time" still retains a vestige of time-orientedness...perhaps unavoidable. But the trajectory is indicated anyways. And it is perhaps that trajectory, that is so difficult to describe or define, that we know we mean.
Second, the definitions of "pre-eternal" (another self-admitting failure at defining what cannot be defined) come to us from something that has no interest in this particular examination. It comes to us from the nature of created versus uncreated. And when we cannot fathom all of that examination, perhaps we should not expect to be experts at this either.
My two cents.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/21/2004 11:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
Thank you John,
(Jo-Anne) Thanks John. I think this makes the most sense to me. God is not mysterious to us, but some things like this remain a mystery.
(John) Even worse, I've heard classical Arminian pastors say (in almost the same breath) such ridiculous things as, "Prayer changes things...and God is in CONTROL!!!!" A more deterministic thing could hardly be said.
(Jo-Anne) John, I hear this every week in prayer time, yet people cry out to God to move, to change things. This has to be confusing for people. The only thing I can think of - is that people just don't think about what they're saying, or pass over it as "mystery."
Yes, I agree.
quote:
It doesn't seem to me that the Calvinistic approach "works" in a real, living, applicable way, although perhaps that's what I was - a confused blend of calvin,arminian,opentheist...what a blend, and I'm still probably a blend, but a less confused one.
I don't think it is right to say that their approach to prayer doesn't work. God is of course quite able to overlook our theological misunderstandings on things like this. However, I do think that there is a need for logical consistency in our understanding of God, which is one reason I think the OV is so appealing to people.
quote:
(John) Probably the only difficulty I had at first was shedding the whole "God is above time" concept. Once that imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God had been cast down, the rest of the Open View was a perfectly natural fit for me.
(Jo-Anne) John, can you explain to me exactly what you mean by God being above time, and how that is a problem for open theism? I think I have an idea what you're saying, but am not sure. If God transcends time (knows the beginning from the end - and He does in some ways right; the future is partly settled - does that mean that He can't relate to us as well "in time."
The classical view as I understand it says God is atemporal (without or above time). This is often described as God seeing all of history simultaneously in a panoramic view. Scripture is often misquoted in support of this, such as "God knows the end from the beginning." What that verse actually says is God declares the end from the beginning. In other words, God says what God's gonna do, and then does it:
Is 46:9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; {I am} God, and there is no one like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned {it, surely} I will do it.
This is just one example of the kinds of passages which are misquoted and misinterpreted to imply exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF). As should be clear, God is not saying, "I already know the future." What he is saying is simply, "I will do what I plan. My purpose shall be accomplished." In other words, the passage is exhibiting God's omnipotence, not God's omniscience.
I am unaware of any passages of Scripture that clearly teach the idea of EDF.
Further, this issue requires that we define precisely what time IS. Classical theists have claimed that time is a CREATED thing. However, as God has forever been thinking and acting, it necessarily follows that time has always existed too, for thinking and acting require sequence and duration.
quote:
(John) Finally, I find the emphasis on real possibilities is crucial to an understanding of the OV and communication of this to others. In the Open View, God does not know LESS than in the classical view of foreknowledge--He knows infinitely MORE, because He knows all the possibilities from possibilities, etcetera ad infinitum, in addition to knowing all the certainties within the realm of the future. (In the classical view, God knows far less than in the OV, for in the classical view there is only ONE sequence of events in history, with no real possibilities at all.
(Jo-Anne) I would never have thought of comparing his knowledge in the two views. Thank you. Is the "classical view" referring to Calvinism, or Arminianism or...?
"The classical view" encompasses both Calvinism and Arminianism with regard to foreknowledge.
quote:
(John) An important followup to this last point about the virtually infinite possibilities God knows is that in light of God's infinite INTELLIGENCE, he is able to deal with each and every possibility as if it were the only thing he had to think about (for His intelligence is infinite).
(Jo-Anne) I love that quote. He is infinitely and creatively sovereign. That makes me stand in awe and wonder. What an amazing Father we have. Do you remember where you read this John? Was it one of Dr Boyd's books?
I'm thinking either GOTP or S&TPOE. I'll have to look. I know I also heard Doc say this in a lecture he gave on the Open View at the EEM conference a couple of years ago.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/21/2004 5:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne: …it seems like the open view is most often pitted against the extreme calvinistic view. What about arminianism? Is there a middle ground?
Tom: Arminianism and the open view have much in common. But unfortunately the simple foreknowledge view of time held to many Arminianists is a philosophically impossible view. I mean, it can’t explain anything about how God uses such foreknowledge. Middle ground positions are nice, but in this case Arminianism isn’t in the middle of anything.
Jo-Anne: I always thought this view [divine timelessness] was supported scripturally. What about the John 1:1 passage that talks about Jesus being the Word, being in the beginning with God, then becoming flesh and dwelling among us? Doesn't that mean He is "timeless" or that He transcends time?
Tom: It certainly means he transcends time in the sense I described. That is, God doesn’t suffer the ravages of time. He doesn’t grey or tend to forget as time goes by. But other than that the passage doesn’t require a timeless or atemporal God. My immediate response to the text would be to understand that the Word is NOT timeless. The passage, as far as I can tell, suggests a God in the flow of time. “In the beginning,” “the Word WAS,” and then “the Word BECAME.” What in any of this suggests that God is timeless?
I believe God created the universe. I’m not at all convinced that this means God “created time” as PoW continues to remind us. It is as arguable that time is NOT created at all, that it’s just a consequent of God’s own existence. It’s a complicated bag of worms, JoAnne, but in the end it boils down to this (for me at least): Regardless of whatever might be God’s relationship to time, timelessness (and the even nuttier notion of time-travel) can’t explain God’s relationships, actions, knowledge, and providence in THIS our temporal world. Believe whatever you want to about God’s timelessness, but don’t use it to smuggle in explanations about foreknowledge, providence, prophecy, etc.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2004 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
The passage, as far as I can tell, suggests a God in the flow of time. “In the beginning,” “the Word WAS,” and then “the Word BECAME.” What in any of this suggests that God is timeless?
Reference: John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."
PoW: The above, though, does not mean that the Son changed in any way with respect to his deity. Just that within time and space he assumed flesh. This distinction is so exteemly important. (And it illustrates how tenuous our ability to talk beyond our ability to experience just is!) Error in this results in a completely different religion.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
I believe God created the universe. I’m not at all convinced that this means God “created time” as PoW continues to remind us.
PoW: The history about Arias is interesting in this regard. Time was a motivating factor in his heresy.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2004 5:58 PM (GMT -6) | | What Athanasias wrote about how we come to the gospel through the course of its narrative, seeing the human Christ, and THEN realize that all along we were seeing the God-man applies.
Kind'a like Tom said, we don't apprehend it all no matter how we package it. But though it all we understand God's "providence", mercy, etc.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/21/2004 7:20 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW: The above, though, does not mean that the Son changed in any way with respect to his deity. Just that within time and space he assumed flesh.
Tom: We can agree that the Son sacrificed nothing of “deity” in becoming human without assuming that “becoming human” means “becoming temporal.”
PoW: Kind'a like Tom said, we don't apprehend it all no matter how we package it. But though it all we understand God's "providence", mercy, etc.
Tom: Well, my point has been that some “packaging” doesn’t at all make it possible to understand God’s providence. Some make it quite impossible to understand providence. So if people who believe God is timeless (or that God time-travels) “understand” providence, it’s because in understanding providence they ignore their beliefs about God being timeless.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/21/2004 9:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
PoW: The above, though, does not mean that the Son changed in any way with respect to his deity. Just that within time and space he assumed flesh.
Tom: We can agree that the Son sacrificed nothing of “deity” in becoming human without assuming that “becoming human” means “becoming temporal.”
PoW: Kind'a like Tom said, we don't apprehend it all no matter how we package it. But though it all we understand God's "providence", mercy, etc.
Tom: Well, my point has been that some “packaging” doesn’t at all make it possible to understand God’s providence. Some make it quite impossible to understand providence. So if people who believe God is timeless (or that God time-travels) “understand” providence, it’s because in understanding providence they ignore their beliefs about God being timeless.
Tom
John, Tom & POW...
I believe I'm beginning to understand some of these things more clearly.
He did change though, when He (Jesus) assumed flesh. He became fully human, whereas before He was fully God, right?
Tom, doesn't becoming human mean that He became temporal? He was completely human right? Or, what would it mean for Him to "be tempted in every way as we are"? This is one of those things that is perhaps beyond our comprehension. Could it be that He was both - temporal, and atemporal? He was relating to us in time, yet He transcends time. After all, God is spirit right? We saw God in the flesh, but God was spirit at the same time. Gets more confusing the more you think about it.
I guess the most important thing for us to know is that He relates personally to each person, throughout their life, and that is one of those things that will never change; one aspect of the present and the future that is settled.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/21/2004 10:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
John, Tom & POW...
I believe I'm beginning to understand some of these things more clearly.
He did change though, when He (Jesus) assumed flesh. He became fully human, whereas before He was fully God, right?
Tom, doesn't becoming human mean that He became temporal? He was completely human right? Or, what would it mean for Him to "be tempted in every way as we are"? This is one of those things that is perhaps beyond our comprehension. Could it be that He was both - temporal, and atemporal? He was relating to us in time, yet He transcends time. After all, God is spirit right? We saw God in the flesh, but God was spirit at the same time. Gets more confusing the more you think about it.
Hi Jo-Anne,
When I use the term, "time" (and the adjectival form, "temporal"), I mean the following:
time (tm)
n.
1. A duration or relation of events expressed in terms of past, present, and future, and measured in units such as minutes, hours, days, months, or years.
2. A certain period during which something is done.
(from the American Heritage Dictionary)
Given this definition of time as "duration or relation of events" and "a certain period during which something is done," it necessarily follows that for the Son of God to become incarnate involved time (a certain period during which something is done, and "duration or relation of events").
For God to act or think at all would require duration and change in His mental process. So, to my understanding it would not be true that the Incarnation involved a change in the Son of God from atemporal to temporal; for, in order for the act of incarnation to occur, there clearly had to be a preparatory planning and thinking prior to the actual act. In addition, as the Scripture refers to Christ as "the lamb slain from the creation of the world," it seems clear that God had the Incarnation in mind for thousands of years before the actual Incarnation of Christ.
Further, when Scripture reveals God acting in time ("Let there be light"), experiencing emotion (The Lord was grieved that He had made mankind in Gen. 6), and most importantly, acting to redeem sinful people (God "came down" to deliver Israel from Egypt, just as Jesus "came down" to deliver all who would believe, etc.), it is self-evident that these ACTS in history would be impossible to an A-temporal (timeless) God. By their very nature, these acts reveal that God is in fact temporal in his relation to history.
quote:
I guess the most important thing for us to know is that He relates personally to each person, throughout their life, and that is one of those things that will never change; one aspect of the present and the future that is settled.
Yes, that is the most important thing. Our contention is that if God is atemporal, then by definition He cannot relate to us in any meaningful way, nor we to Him; if God is atemporal, then all (even God himself) is totally determined (and not free).
God bless,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/22/2004 2:07 AM (GMT -6) | | JoAnne: He did change though, when He (Jesus) assumed flesh. He became fully human, whereas before He was fully God, right?
Tom: He was ONLY fully God before. But he didn’t stop being fully God after he became human. After he became human he was BOTH—fully divine and fully human.
JoAnne: Tom, doesn't becoming human mean that He became temporal?
Tom: John answered this well. It’s just as likely that God was already temporal when he became human. Becoming human doesn’t demand that you first be timeless. It just demands that you NOT be human.
JoAnne: He was completely human right? Or, what would it mean for Him to "be tempted in every way as we are"?
Tom: Right. He was fully human. But that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t be temporal before becoming human. I’m not saying becoming human demands a temporal state of existence either. I’m just saying it doesn’t rule out either a temporal or timeless state of existence. You can’t conclude from that fact that the Son became HUMAN that the Son must therefore have been timeless (or must therefore have been temporal) before becoming human.
JoAnne: Could it be that He was both - temporal, and atemporal?
Tom: I don’t think so. I don’t think you’re saying anything meaningful when you say something or someone is both temporal and atemporal. These are contradictory states. Can a person be married and a bachelor at the time time? Can a geometric figure be a circle and a square at the same time? And if someone told you that they were a “married bachelor,” would you understand anything at all?
JoAnne: He was relating to us in time, yet He transcends time. After all, God is spirit right?
Tom: Being “spirit” (or non-material) doesn’t imply a timeless mode of existence. Remember, the angels are spirit-beings and they’re temporal! That right there blows the theory that non-materiel being = timeless being out of the water. It’s just not so. God likewise, doesn't have to be timeless "just because" God is non-material Spirit.
JoAnne: I guess the most important thing for us to know is that He relates personally to each person, throughout their life, and that is one of those things that will never change; one aspect of the present and the future that is settled.
Tom: Right on! Let THAT guide your thinking on other issues (like God’s relationship to time and the belief that God predetermines all things, etc.).
Blessings,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/22/2004 2:13 AM (GMT -6) | | JoAnne: He was relating to us in time, yet He transcends time. After all, God is spirit right?
Genesis 1:2
"The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Jo-anne, "movement" implies what?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/22/2004 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | So being temporal means that God the Father relates to us in a timely manner, in time, day by day. Yet at the same time Jesus was "slain before the foundation of the world?" God knew that part of the future. It was settled, but all the while He was temporal in His relationship with humanity and creation.
Atemporal means a God who knows the end from the beginning, not in the sense of doing what God says He will do, but in the sense that He determines before the foundation of the world what will happen, and this implies that He must "make it so", right? Or, am I way off base.
Sisters, I'm not sure what you're looking for, but movement implies life to me. If something is moving, it is alive and affecting everything around it. Is that what you're looking for?
God is actively relating to us in time, as He has throughout history, and will in the future. And, He plans somethings that need to happen, and moves, just as He moved over the surface of the waters, to see those things accomplished.
I hope I'm making sense. I think I'm grasping this somewhat better. We use words (the Christian community) like all powerful, all knowing, infinite, sovereign, majestic, creator, etc., and I believe that people (most people) interpret that as meaning that God is above what we experience, that He is not affected by it...
I read Most Moved Mover, and loved it. I can't remember right now if it was Sanders or Pinnock or Boyd who wrote it...It's here somewhere. Oh well. That was the first thing I had read in over 20 years that made me realize that He relates to us actively, and is even affected by us. He is not the "Christo Redentor" by is a God who responds to His people, and is moved by what we experience, and by our choices.
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/22/2004 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Yeah. This is not writen in English, cause if it was it would have a train leaving one station at one speed and another half way further at another speed, and factoring the price of tea in China...it would involve SPACE wouldn't it. And that is not something that pious people say. We don't say that God is here but not here. We've read Psalm 138 (the one about from where can I go from God...If I go...behold you are there.)
Equally, that's not a statement about literal movement. Jo-anne is on target.
(Ooops. I wastn't going to post.  ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/23/2004 3:39 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I hear the sound of a flushing toilet! Down the tubes. [Tom}
Well you know Tom the greatest number of evangelical Christianity actually believe your view belongs in the toilet. Id back down from stating a persons view on this subject belongs in a toilet Tom for you’ll get some folks who believe in classical theism that you’ll offend unnecessarily. Im not sure that it encourages people to come to the table and talk about this very sensitive issue. Not me for like Sis points out below im a Vulcan and you know Vulcan’s can’t get offended.
quote:
Hey bobber, last night I read that any object's mass approaches infinity as it's speed approaches the speed of light. So the mass of all that information God is "blasting back" above the speed of light is infinitely larger than infinity, effectively blowing up the universe. [SisterOfCain]
Hi Sis and thanks for you’re response with your smily face to …Its always good to see a smile. Yes I know if an object [remember now that’s a physical one they’re talking about] that if it reaches up to the speed of light it’s mass would reach infinity. Yes I know that Sis. But we’re not talking about something physical here though are we. We’re talking about knowledge or revelation. How much does the thoughts that im putting into your mind right now Sis…how much do they weigh what are their mass, lets say if they got up to near the speed of light? Well they don’t have any mass at all? Correct. They’re are not a physical thing. That's what they were talking about Sis. Physical things
quote:
Live long and prosper <gives Star Commander Bobber the Vulcan salute> [SisterOfCain]
Logic would dictate to me the following conclusion Sis that you’re maybe being a tad wee bit too emotional here and you’ve also crossed the line in making light of one of our most cherished cultural traditions…the giving of the salute… I have a hard time making that salute with my hand…my fingers don’t seem to separate just right, but never do I think it should be made fun of! Do you think you might need some sensitivity training Sis? [But then again we Vulcans can’t get offended anyway! Lucky you!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/23/2004 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
There are things that God knows about us that make it remarkably simple for Him to predict what we will do in certain situations, like Jesus knowing that Peter would deny Him. [Stark]
I question that it would be as you put it remarkably simple to predict. Not simple at all. Why? Because even the worst known cowards have made decisions which some might be considered totally out of their character, actions which would make them heroes. And secondly why in the world would Jesus play this extremely risky gambling game of making such a decision to wager this guess? Someone says that it’s not a guess with God for he knows the hearts. One problem though is that why didn’t he know Abraham’s heart if God knows the hearts [in the way that people say this] He stated words to the effect "Now I know what you’ll do that you do love me." So he knows the hearts of men but then again he doesn’t know the hearts of men? No, I think what the real answer is that we must rightly divide the word of truth in that sometimes God is speaking from the time standpoint but other times he’s speaking from an eternal standpoint. In time [physical time] God didn’t know what Abraham would do and with Peter you’re seeing God speaking from the eternal perspective. Which means this, God didn’t know the future but revelation going back in time connecting to the beginning, the second time around the time loop of physical time God enhances the prophetic revelation of his word. Jesus said he is the Alpha/Omega The Beginning And The End.
quote:
Though Jesus told Peter he would deny Him, this doesn't mean Peter wasn't free not to deny the Lord, it just means that Peter's heart was very clear before the Lord. Jesus letting Peter in on a little secret: "Peter, you are not as strong as you think you are; I see your heart quite clearly. You do not yet see your heart clearly." And if God hast to prove his point to a stubborn individual, God can and will arrange for circumstances to force the issue and show what the person is really made of.[Stark]
Well first of all you state Peter had the freedom to choose as he chose but then you state but God created circumstances which he knew would force Peter to deny the Lord. Well how then was he free? No I think what you’re trying to do is mix in Calvinistic thinking and all the while claim that Peter had free will, in other words you’re trying to have your cake and eat it to.
quote:
And that is why we see Jesus telling Peter, though he desperately loved the Jesus, that he would deny Him three times. (As far as "how" God brings it about that there would be three times is neither here nor there. [Stark]
I would say it most certain is significance that he told him the actual number of time he would betray him. If Peter actually betrayed the Lord once and its remembered later that Jesus said three are you telling me that wouldn’t have been significant ? A little leaven spoils the whole lump and to have Jesus to have declared such a thing as a form of prophecy and for it not to have occurred I suggest would have serious implications.
quote:
Often times Christians will respond to this example by saying that though God knows the future exhaustively, He doesn't act like He knows it that way when He interacts with mankind. Really now! First, if this were so, God is being deceptive, and second, who's He fooling if we already know that He knows the future exhaustively? [Stark]
Not if you take my view of Classical Open Theism which mixes classical theism and open theism together. It would say there was a true point in time in which God didn’t know but because of retrograde time, time, if I can put it this way, goes around a loop. So the second time around the loop it can never be argued that there wasn’t a time that God didn’t genuinely not know. There was time that God didn’t know, but he changed that or from our perspective he will change that. If you study the scriptures you’ll see in Genesis 17 that God said to Abraham "I have made you a father of many nations." You’ll notice he didn’t say I will make you one, in the text but rather I have done it? Well that many nations is speaking of us the Gentiles in Christ Jesus. But he states not that he will but rather that he hath. So God speaks in scriptures sometimes from a time standpoint, but there are other times he’s speaking from the eternal standpoint. Yes I know it’s astonishing and somewhat beyond our comprehension but why not just receive it and let God be God, the Alpha/Omega?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/23/2004 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne-
You have good instincts. You’re doing just fine. The finer points will come in time (Ha, ‘in time’!).
Jo-Anne: So being temporal means that God the Father relates to us in a timely manner, in time, day by day.
Tom: He does relate to us in time. But more simply, being temporal just means existing one moment after the other, in time.
Jo-Anne: Yet at the same time Jesus was "slain before the foundation of the world?" God knew that part of the future.
Tom: Another complicated issue. That Jesus was "slain before the foundation of the world” can mean that Jesus’ death was a sure thing before God even created. This could be true in two ways: 1) If God determines all things, he determines that Jesus is crucified. Done deal. Or 2) one could argue (as some open theists do) that the fall of humanity into sin and Jesus’ death was an inevitable outcome of creating us. Once God committed to creating, he knew that eventually human beings would screw themselves and the world up and Jesus would die.
But it’s also possible to understand “slain before the foundation of the world” to reflect the unfolding of God’s commitment to die for the world SHOULD THAT BECOME NECESSARY. It doesn’t take anything away from the love or significance of Jesus’ death to suggest that it was a contingency plan that God indeed COMMITTED TO before creation. When it became necessary and Jesus eventually did die, one could honestly say that Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world. If I pledge on my wedding day to protect my wife with my life, and 20 years later we find ourselves in a situation in which either I or she has to die, I can say, “You know honey, I made this decision long ago, when I committed to love and honor you” (and then push her off the bridge! Nawww! Just kiddin). I obviously would be the one offering myself!
Part of this issue turns on the meaning of the Greek for “before” and for “foundation” in “slain BEFORE the foundation of the world.”
Jo-Anne: Atemporal means a God who knows the end from the beginning, not in the sense of doing what God says He will do, but in the sense that He determines before the foundation of the world what will happen, and this implies that He must "make it so", right? Or, am I way off base.
Tom: The word “atemporal” doesn’t imply anything about knowledge per say. It just means “not temporal.” If God is atemporal, he doesn’t experience time. He never changes in any sense of the word. That’s all. What this implies about his knowledge and actions is a different thing.
Bobber: Well you know Tom the greatest number of evangelical Christianity actually believe your view belongs in the toilet.
Tom: Which view is that?
Bobber: Id back down from stating a persons view on this subject belongs in a toilet Tom for you’ll get some folks who believe in classical theism that you’ll offend unnecessarily.
Tom: The flushing sound was a metaphor, Bobber. And it was intended to be a bit funny. So I stink at humor. Point is, your divine time-travel theory isn’t a mediating position between classical theists and open theists. Not even close.
Bobber: Hi Sis and thanks for you’re response with your smily face to …Its always good to see a smile. Yes I know if an object [remember now that’s a physical one they’re talking about] that if it reaches up to the speed of light it’s mass would reach infinity. Yes I know that Sis. But we’re not talking about something physical here though are we. We’re talking about knowledge or revelation.
Tom: How does an immaterial omnipresent God travel at any speed (including faster than the speed of light)?
Bobber: How much does the thoughts that im putting into your mind right now Sis…how much do they weigh what are their mass, lets say if they got up to near the speed of light? Well they don’t have any mass at all? Correct. They’re are not a physical thing. That's what they were talking about Sis. Physical things
Tom: Then your theory fails. Speed is an attribute of the material creation, not applicable to a non-material omnipresent God. If you can’t attribute speed to God at all, God can’t “travel faster than” light. Indeed, he can’t “travel faster than” anything, not even a snail. He can’t travel, period. Nor can omnipresence explain how God can travel faster than light (or at any speed at all). All that God is, is everywhere. His mind is everwhere present. There’s no “speed” (slower than or faster than light) attributed to the transfer of knowledge from God present in Maui to God present on Alpha Centauri.
Assuming human being A is in Maui (that’s me!) and human being B is on Alpha Centauri (that’s you!), and I burped in Maui and God wanted to reveal that bit of information to you just as HE knew it happened (the first time it happened [in your multi-world history], OK?), God would not travel faster than the speed of light, or at any speed whatsoever, to “get the information to you” on Alpha Centauri. There IS NO SPACE between God in Maui and God on Alpha Centauri. Both are within the mind of the one omnipresent God.
God couldn’t travel faster than the speed of light without first becoming incarnate in the material world for which world alone the speed of light (and the theories based on such speed, including yours) apply. But once that is assumed, your theory fails. If it’s not assumed, your theory doesn’t apply.
Guuwiiiisshhhh (Gurgle, gurgle)! (Sound of a time-traveling toilet). 
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
| 64 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:33 AM (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 |
|
|