 |
| 
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 7/27/2003 9:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Fleetwood
BTW, these are perilous days and open theism has caused quite a stir in the evangelistic world. It is a hot topic on the burner and is not likely to quiet down. In fact, a split of sorts is predicted in the future as a result. It is unfortunate, but yet, when it comes to matters of doctrine, is at times unavoidable. Open theism affronts the beliefs held by many upright and god-fearing men and women. Some pray, some speak, some write books and articles. My "preconceived notions" have only come after extensive dialogue with both open theists and non open theists as well as research, study, and prayer. My manner of dialogue via inernet discussion may not be gracious as it should be and for those who have confronted this on my part and on the part of others as lately there has been much bru-ha-ha, I read their words and take them to heart. There is no excuse for incivility on my part; however, as a person with passion and fervor, it is my nature to be hotheaded, espcially in a matter such as this. Yes, much of this will be added to my research and writing, which perhaps is unfortunate for open theists. There must be good fruit born of a theology for that theology to be respected and valued. And with that, let us pray that that comment does not lead to another Calvinsm lashing!
Fleetwood: Open Theism affronts the beliefs held by many upright and god-fearing men and women...
Shell:Don't you see that your above comment is a form of "Open View lashing"? And then you end with "... let us pray that that comment does not lead to another Calvinism lashing!" This is exactly the kind of button-pushing I am talking about. And you wonder why you get some of the resonses you do?
Fleetwood:...There is no excuse for incivility on my part, however, as a person with passion and fervor, It is my nature to be hotheaded, especially in a matter such as this...
Shell: Is this your way of saying you need grace? Join the club! Or are your hot-headed responses a reflection of all Calvinists? This is exactly why you can't come to the conclusions you are drawing about the "motivations and intentions" of Open Theists because of passionate, hot-headed responses going in both directions.
I'm off to bed.  (I'm going to be REALLY sorry for this late night posting when my kids get me up tomorrow!ugh!) By the way, maybe you should buy your wife some flowers
Blessings to ya...really
Shell
p.s. oops, now I'm going to stay out of this!
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/28/2003 4:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Fleetwood
Laika,
We are certainly made in God's image, but this conveys to us that we our souls, emotions, and being are in His image. Animals, for instance, are not made in God's image.
You better re-read your J. I. Packer then, because he says when God uses words of emotion, He's using anthropopathic language, i.e. He really doesn't have emotions like us. I believe we're made in God's mental image as well, which is why when Jesus taught us about God, He used human analogies in His parables, something you and ReasonableDoubt have refused to admit are valid for explaining what God is like.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/28/2003 4:54 AM (GMT -6) | | I do not attempt to mischaracterize the Open Thiest beliefs. I will quote from this website as to what Open theism is: "Open view theists believe that the future exists partly as actualities (future events which God sovereignly determines to bring about) and partly as possibilities (aspects of the future which God sovereignly allows his creatures to bring about)."
However, that does not mean that this view cannot be critiqued using traditional viewpoints. Redefining "omniscience" and "future" is perfectly within Open Theists rights, I don't begrudge that. But don't expect other people to blithely accept your definitions. I know what it is that Open Theism teaches, I do not agree with it and have attempted to show why through my numerous posts. I agree with this article- and one of the problems is the very re-defining of concepts, so that when someone does try to critique,t he stock answer seems to be "Well that's not what we mean by future!" or "You refuse to listen to what we mean" or "you're mischaracterizing it!"
I understand it, and I don't believe that it is coherent given what my definitions of the future and omniscience are. I've said before, I don't think it's coherent to say the future is partly open, partly settled, and quite a few people have interacted with me on that post, and some, particularly Starkman and DLW, are a pleasure to debate with.
I find it amusing that anyone would use a website like this to grind their axe - and I don't think that's what Fleetwood has been doing. After all, it is very simple to hide behind handles, log on to this site, and write whatever we wish, we never will have to see any of these people. So grinding an axe here is pretty useless.
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/28/2003 5:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I find it amusing that anyone would use a website like this to grind their axe - and I don't think that's what Fleetwood has been doing.
Go read his posts: plagiarism and schoolyard trashtalk. I wish you had not gotten mixed up trying to back him up.
No one has alienated more people so quick.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2003 5:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I do not attempt to mischaracterize the Open Thiest beliefs. I will quote from this website as to what Open theism is: "Open view theists believe that the future exists partly as actualities (future events which God sovereignly determines to bring about) and partly as possibilities (aspects of the future which God sovereignly allows his creatures to bring about)."
You seem to have got it down. You get a star!
quote:
However, that does not mean that this view cannot be critiqued using traditional viewpoints. Redefining "omniscience" and "future" is perfectly within Open Theists rights, I don't begrudge that. But don't expect other people to blithely accept your definitions. I know what it is that Open Theism teaches, I do not agree with it and have attempted to show why through my numerous posts. I agree with this article- and one of the problems is the very re-defining of concepts, so that when someone does try to critique,t he stock answer seems to be "Well that's not what we mean by future!" or "You refuse to listen to what we mean" or "you're mischaracterizing it!"
Yes but there is an inherent tautology at work here. From the Classical view, what OVTheology says is an emaciation of God's omniscience. From an OVTheology view, what Classical Theology says is jfdasdktjsoidkagjasodigjfdklsfjaslk, not terribly meaningful, or a square circle.
So the question as I understand it is both views of the future cannot be true and are OVTheists redefining it, or are they trying to correct a redefinition that was done by Augustine and Calvin. Whose notion of the future is closer to what the writers of the Bible said?
That should be the foundation on which one decides what Truth is.
quote:
I understand it, and I don't believe that it is coherent given what my definitions of the future and omniscience are. I've said before, I don't think it's coherent to say the future is partly open, partly settled, and quite a few people have interacted with me on that post, and some, particularly Starkman and DLW, are a pleasure to debate with.
It is coherent, I.e., it holds together as a way of seeing the world and affirming God as loving. I think what you mean is appealing...
quote:
I find it amusing that anyone would use a website like this to grind their axe - and I don't think that's what Fleetwood has been doing. After all, it is very simple to hide behind handles, log on to this site, and write whatever we wish, we never will have to see any of these people. So grinding an axe here is pretty useless.
My father is not an OVTheist, but he took the time to try and understand it and as a result he accepts it as a legitimate Christian viewpoint. Most people who take the time to do so, either embrace it, or come to that viewpoint. Especially when they are aware of the wonderful ministry of Greg Boyd.
However, there are those that have an interest in trying to debunk it as I explain in my Dorrien post. As such, rather than seekers, they might be characterized as "muck-rakers". Given the sordid history of how Christians have treated each other over religious differences, it is not surprising that many OVTheists would be suspicious.
I like my hemlock, shaken not stirred...
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/28/2003 6:14 AM (GMT -6) | | RD: why shouldn't people accept our definitions? Are we not the ones who define what we believe? Do I define what you believe? Do I tell you what you believe? If you want to truly understand open theism you will need to learn what we believe through our definitions and how we use words, or you will never learn and simply go about redefining open theism how you like it and wonder why open theists don't trust you.
You agree with the article, which means you agree with the way a non-open theist defines open theism. So then you won't mind as I redefine calvinism in my own terms, since I no longer want to accept their definitions... | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2003 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, but we can avoid a lot of heat in our communications by delineating the different definitions we have and how they cause misunderstandings and what sorts of criteria would one use to choose between the different definitions...
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/28/2003 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | | DLW, Question for you, merely out of curiosity and interest. Why did your father chose to reject open theism, assuming that since he studied it yet is not open theist, he has rejected it. I am of course assuming he is a Chrisitan. With RD, I also have enjoyed brief dialogues with you DLW and appreciate the link put up in another post. Will check it out soon. While we must agree to disagree, you certainly show yourself to be a highly intelligent man able to express yourself without inflammatory accusations. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/28/2003 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | DLW, you said that most people who take the time to do study open theism, either embrace it, or come to the viewpoint that it is a legitimate Christian view point, but I would have to differ in my opinion here. Open theism has, in fact, undergone a year long (for some longer than a year) scrutiny by many pastoral leaders in order to claim its Biblical legitimacy. There are those more highly scholared than my own self who having studied it extensively, yet reject it based on grounds of inerrancy. In other words, despite study, not all accept it as a legitimately Christian viewpoint. It is not as much a debate of is it or isn't it in terms of Chrisitan legitimacy as much as it is a debate over is it or isn't it in terms of Bible inerrancy. Hope that helps. | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2003 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Fleetwood
DLW, Question for you, merely out of curiosity and interest. Why did your father chose to reject open theism, assuming that since he studied it yet is not open theist, he has rejected it. I am of course assuming he is a Chrisitan. With RD, I also have enjoyed brief dialogues with you DLW and appreciate the link put up in another post. Will check it out soon. While we must agree to disagree, you certainly show yourself to be a highly intelligent man able to express yourself without inflammatory accusations.
I attribute all my charity to the benefits of my rage-aholic group that I meet with weekly!! I also have a punching bag with the words Pow on it right next to my computer. 
I don't know why my father isn't an open theist. If I had to guess it may be lethargy. When you've believed in something for so long it is hard to change your mind(but that's just me and how I rationalize still believing that objective, rationale arguments can actually make a difference in this world.).
Ultimately, it may be hard to live with a belief in considerable openness in the world. It is easier to give closure to it.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
I wish we didn't live in a world where buying and selling things (especially selling) seems to have become almost more important than either producing or using them.
C.S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/28/2003 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
quote:
"On their own grounds, though, it is hard to see how the seminiscient deity of open theism helps much with the problem of evil. If God has comprehensive knowledge of everything past and present, and if He has the capacity to intervene in the course of human affairs, then why doesn’t He come to the rescue as soon as He sees that things have gotten out of hand? Maybe He couldn’t know for sure back in 1933 that Hitler would freely decide to carry out the Holocaust, but when it was well underway a decade later, why didn’t He use His omnipotent resources to bring it to a halt? Did He “allowEit to go on just to preserve Hitler’s libertarian free will? Such a God has just as much to account for as the old-fashioned deity dismissed by the process model. Open theism grants God too much power to get Him off the theodicy hook, but not enough power to support a plausible doctrine of providence."
God did stop the holocaust. He used the allied armies. Six million Jews and three million slavs died, but how many more could have died? Thank you Jesus, that you're the God who STOPPED the holocaust and NOT the god who CAUSED the holocaust.
To say that there is no difference between God allowing people to have free will and then they create evil and God being the designer and sole cause of evil is moronic. There's a HUGH difference and smart people, whether they're Christians or atheists, notice it. The number one complaint I see atheists make is the God causing evil complaint. Thank you Jesus that you're the God who allows freedom and NOT the god who causes evil.
If God is some celestial santa claus that keeps us from all pain and evil, why even create us? Your god, ENIG, creates evil and good and calls it all good. How whacked is that? Our God creates free moral agents who have the ability to do evil or good. Our ability to do evil is built into our ability to do good. For Him to run up and rescue us everytime we choose to do something bad would make our freedom a sham and we would never become mature.
Raising kids teaches us this. In the parable of the prodigal son, the father (who represents GOD), allows the son to take his inheritance and make BAD decisions. Just like God allows us the freedom to make bad decisions. It's part of the learning process.
We had this long discussion on 9/11 sometime ago.
This is my first fess'n up on Open Theism.
On the theodicy issue, OT DOESN'T gel with me. As the Meph Man (Mephi2k or MephEternal) has shown, we cannot say for certain how God was involved in 9/11.
One thing for sure is this. No one wants to say that God had ANYTHING to do with 9/11. Therefore, they would probably say that God was not involved in the Holocaust either.
Sorry Laika, but I don't think you are quite accurate in your assessment here. Basically, here's how we worked it on that thread.
Many Christians don't want to hear sum'n like this:
"There is a greater good purpose behind *** event." It is reprehensible in the eyes of many that in some way, shape or form God could have been involved in said event. However, it is quite possible even within an Open Theistic view that God "worked compatibilistically" with the solidified characters of SS Nazi guards and Al Qaida terrorists to accomplish some greater good purpose. "How?" you may ask?
Greg gave the illustration of a chess game on that thread. According to the Open View, God is about to lose a rook. God desires to save the rook. Even in the Open View God can act unilaterally when he wants to save the rook. So why doesn't he?
The answer is that he has some greater good purpose not only for the rook but also for the whole chess game (creation). The reason this is possible is because we don't have God's vantage point. Returning to the chess game, for example, say saving that rook means that the King or even the game will be lost, in that case, it might be "better" for God to not "spare" the rook. See what I'm saying?
Now this has not even touched on judgment. It is possible that a evil event could have been a judgement of God, though I am inclined to believe that God would have warned ahead of time of impending doom. However, some don't even want to think of God as acting like this though this is possible within the chess scenario given above as well as having been admitted by open theists Clark Pinnock and Robert Brow.
What the Meph Man's scenario doesn't repond to is the question of a blueprint. Greg had said on that thread that even within the whole chess scenario there is no need to bring forth a blueprint. The other thing it doesn't respond to is the question of EDF. Also, it does seem to say that the open view of immutability and impassibilty are still retained though. That is, God still "works with" his creation. That is to say, he will not move but only in reponse to his creation.
And I'm telling ya...I have been waiting on the Meph Man for about the past 9-12 months concerning these questions. But I understand his situation.
Brandon
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/28/2003 11:06 AM (GMT -6) | | You should repost this on the new 9-11 thread.
dlw | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/28/2003 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Well I thought of that, but I wanted to keep Laika's quote in this thread. However, I still may do it because this might be lost five pages down on this thread.
Brandon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/28/2003 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | BBBBrandon, the fourth plane crashed and everyone on board died, yet those heroes on it prevented it from killing anyone else. Do you see God as assisting them in this somehow?
How many tragedies have been prevented? Ahmed Ressam was nabbed at the US/Canadian border with explosives bound for LAX.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/etc/synopsis.html
A plot led by Siddig Ibrahim Siddig to blow up seven landmarks in New York in 1993 was averted.
The Bojinka plot mastermined by Ramzi Yousef was twarted as well
www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,550411,00.html
There's many other terrorist plots that have been stopped. People who look at 9/11 and say, "Where was God?" or "What is God's purpose in this?" are ignorant of the fact that God is working overtime to stop evil.
As for prior warnings, my wife's cousin had a dream about planes hitting tower(s) a few days before 9/11. As an MK and a longtime missionary in Mexico and Spain, I trust her veracity. There are no pat answers.
His heel was bruised, no one gets out unscathed.
Hasek to jail?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 7/28/2003 11:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Ooooo...L-L-L-Laaaaaika,
You may be agreeing with me!
Brandon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/28/2003 4:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Albert-
I agree with you - Calvinists may try to have their cake and eat it too also. I am a REAL determinist- which means I do not believe there are any "free will actions." That's b/c I believe that logically, from determinism, compatibilism is pretty much a copout. But I do understand the Calvinist argument of compatibilistic actions. Plantinga, not a Calvinist, but he's also not an Open Viewer- you must admit. He's similar to Craig in this middle knowledge thing.
When ANY side uses definitions that go against the grain - or , the commonly understood meaning of a word - the burden is on that side to prove why we should adopt that meaning. So the phrase "God knows the future" - to most people means simply that God can and does foresee what will happen tomorrow- 10 years from now, 50 yrs from now, etc. If, by "future"- you don't mean the commonly held notion of future, it's on you to defend that. Same with omniscience. Most people understand the omniscience of God to mean that he knows everything there is to know, which includes the future. If you have a cogent argument that that is NOT what omniscience means, it's on you then to define and prove that.
If, as a wild example, I started saying "God is omnipotent"- but in the same breath I say that God cannot do miracles, the burden is on me then to redefine "omnipotence" to exclude doing miracles. I could say something like, "miracles are not possible, therefore, God cannot do them, but that doesn't mean he is not omnipotent, b/c I define omnipotence to mean only that God can do everything humanly and physically possible."
Now, when you try to critique me, I'd guess you'd say something like, "everyone knows that that is not the definition of omnipotence...etc." So I could not be surprised when you use traditional concepts of omnipotence to try to prove me wrong.
And, of course, CS Lewis was not infallible - but i happen to like his quote. :)
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/29/2003 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | | You can be held accountable for your actions for two reasons - one is pragmatic - you are the person who "did" the action, you should "own" it, regardless of the causal influences on you. Who else can be held accountable but the primary actor? And, as I've said so much here, determinism means only that everything is caused, you're part of a causal chain- it's not like a human is a devoid puppet being tossed along by God. A human responds to causes, and makes choices b/c of causes.
Secondly, there's the prophylactic. If we're talking about criminals being held accountable for their crimes, we need to protect society from them, in the same manner in which we might quarantine people with SARS or some contagion. To protect society from these people.
Determinism also is quite compatible with rehabilitation. We can attempt to rehabilitate criminals by using difference causes to create desired effects (doesn't always work of course)- but the action of imprisonment itself can and does serve as a deterrent to many people and thus causes them to clean up their act and live according to the law.
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 7/29/2003 2:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
And, as I've said so much here, determinism means only that everything is caused, you're part of a causal chain- it's not like a human is a devoid puppet being tossed along by God. A human responds to causes, and makes choices b/c of causes.
Rd,
Where is the actual CHOICE here? If every cause was set up and predetermined to occur,which would then dictate a certain predetermined "choice" or response, it's not really a choice at all, and how can that be owned? If I was predetermined to kill someone in my lifetime, and every cause leading up to it was predetermined..how is there any choice involved in that at all. That really is the same as being a puppet when you go back to the very beginning.
Shell | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/29/2003 5:45 PM (GMT -6) | | My response is - so what? What are the implications of holding someone "morally responsible"? If it's a crime that was committed, the implications are then is that person should be convicted and locked up, in order to rehabilitate the person, and to protect society. If it's not a criminal wrong, but an action against you that is harmful to you , you hold the primary actor responsible just as a matter of common sense and practicality. If someone lies to you, are you angry with the liar, or with his or her parents who raised that person to be a liar? My guess is the parents are irrelevant to you, b/c you are judging that particular person's actions toward you, and the causes that made that person lie to you are not relevant to you for holding that person morally responsible.
In order to be "ultimately responsible" one would have to be causa sui - the ultimate cause or origin of oneself. But nothing can be that - whether you believe in God or not. Especially if you believe in God - then you believe that God created you and caused you. Nearly all those who believe in radical free will do so without a conscious thought that it requires ultimate self-origination.
In the final analysis, any given person is what he is. Is it necessarily fair? No, not to our minds, but neither is it fair to be born into ease and luxury in the US as opposed to being born into poverty and sickness in Africa (and none of us deny that people have absolutely NOTHING to do with the circumstances in which they are born). We need to get rid of the notion that God owes it to us all to create us all in the exact same manner, with the exact same intellect, genetics, influences, etc. It's undeniable that these circumstances differ drastically, through absolutely no desire or will of oneself.
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/29/2003 6:49 PM (GMT -6) | | From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible demonstrates that each person is ultimately responsible for his/her own sin. There is nothing causal back of one's own choosing that coerces him or her to sin. To say there is to throw back one's guilt on God. And the Scripture responds:
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
"...that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;" (Rom. 3:19b)
In this aspect, determinism seems particularly attractive to many in this psychologizing day and age, in which Flip Wilson's theology, "the devil made me do it," is only slightly removed from "I couldn't help myself," and "God made me this way; why would He condemn me for having a nature that he made me with?"
But they look in vain to the Scriptures for an excuse for their sin.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/30/2003 4:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, actions are right or wrong - but you asked how do we hold someone responsible for actions under determinism, and I gave my answer.
As far as God holding someone responsible for actions - I don't know how he does that. I do know that he says he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. That grace is a gift and not something you get from being "good"...
My belief goes along with Calvinism in that GOd is ultimately "responsible" for the state of the universe b/c he wills it, but that will is perfect, and he has a reason for things being the way they are.
As long as it is objectively true that God creates each person's situation into which they are born, you can easily see that people are not equal- they don't each have equal influences on their actions. Like I said, people can and are held accountable by virtue of the fact that each person does a particular action - and so owns it - whether it is right or wrong.
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
| 71 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:57 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 |
|
|