 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:23 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
That's the God you believe in, buddy!
That's the internet equivalent of "Your shoe's untied."
I see that almost everyone is doing that on this thread.
Let's all give it a rest. (Or pick on me!) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/21/2003 5:41 AM (GMT -6) | | RD: I am pretty certain that when Laika's daughter is 20 she is not going to need her mother to watch her when she crosses the street. Try and stay in the reality of the analogy, not the strawman you wish to set up.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/21/2003 5:45 AM (GMT -6) | | It should also be noted that ALL views of God have their weaknesses that must be dealt with. Fleetwood, if you feel the open view of God is weak, don't forget that your view of God has much to be responsible for. Albert's way of putting it may be blunt, but it has an element of truth to it.
All views have their weak areas that must be dealt with. Casting aides at an opponents weak side doesn't make your weakness any less true.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/21/2003 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
So is it an attribute of love then, for you to see your daughter cross the street, a car comes and hits her, and you stood there and did nothing, b/c you didn't want to control the situation?
Of course. That's exactly what I meant. Life is THAT binary, RD, it's EITHER OR, no inbetweens. Either I TOTALLY CONTROL my daughters and express my love that way OR I give them TOTAL FREEDOM and let them die, that's real love.
Is this gray ball BLACK or WHITE?
Some people start out with lots of control over their kids and as the children mature, loosen the restraints so the children can learn how to handle their freedom. It's called the maturing process. You might not understand this process as it involves change.
Edited by - Laika on 07/21/2003 10:54:30 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/21/2003 6:01 AM (GMT -6) | | I agree with Fleetwood or whoever it was who said the analogies about God with people are not very appropos. But might point was not a 20 yr old daughter- a 5 year old daughter, let's say. After all, God to people is like a parent to a child, you all say. But we're not talking about a parent to their 20 year old child, are we? B/c at that point, both are adults and equally able to make their own decisions.
Think about these things before posting the first thing that pops into your head. When you make a parent-child analogy, you have to make it as similar as possible to the relationship between God and his children. And that's not an equal relationship.
"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 7/21/2003 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm glad to hear Honorman acknowledge that ALL views have their problems. I think that OVers should want to stay as far away from being dogmatic as possible. After all, that is one criticism against Calvinism, right? That they are too narrow minded and dogmatic?
A little humility is in order for ALL sides. I myself am not a 5 point Calvinist- never have been- used to be Arminian, but once I started really researching this i became more deterministic. When I first heard of Open Theism, i was intrigued and thought that they may be onto something. However, being on this board has helped solidify my belief against Open Theism- only b/c of the theological and philosophical arguments that have been addressed here - not b/c of the attitude i have encountered. I would never say that my view is "right." And several people on the board seem to think that Open Theism IS the only way, and are openly hostile to people who challenge that, with a lack of knowledge of the history of the church, and no deference whatsoever to the many learned and intelligent scholars that have gone before us.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and entitled to respect for them, if they are reasoned - but some OVers, at least the ones on this Board, are no less narrow-minded that Calvinists.
I think we all need to agree that none of us can know the mind of God, none of us has a hotline to God, and that to be "right" is not something that is possible in this lifetime. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/21/2003 6:26 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
I agree with Fleetwood or whoever it was who said the analogies about God with people are not very appropos.
But those are EXACTLY the kind of analogies Jesus used. "Our Father, who art in heaven"
The prodigal son parable, who's the father in the parable? Who's the son in the parable?
The woman banging on the door of the judge parable. Who's the judge in the parable? Who's the woman? We're supposed to pray like this Jesus said.
The shepherd looking for the lost sheep parable. Who's the shepherd in the parable? Who's the lost sheep in the parable?
What's the alternative? What other language to use?
Fleetwood says, don't use human language. zenzen wakanain desu
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/21/2003 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | RD: I would agree with your observations to a point, but I would ask, why should I listen to you if you don't believe you are right? I would concede that I could be wrong (as an open theist) but until I am proven wrong I argue my points because I believe they are right and they are the best way to see God because I believe scripture teaches these points. If you don't believe you are right I would wonder why you even argue for or against anything. I mean, to be honest, who cares about your view if you aren't secure enough in them to believe they are right?
I have little respect for people who do not have the courage to be wrong, the courage to say I may be wrong but I will go out on a limb and argue what I believe to be right.
Finally, I know of no one on this board who believes that the open view is the only way. Could you please point out those who have stated as such, RD. I would most appreciate it.
In fact, RD, I think you are totally wrong about not being able to be "right" in our lifetime. I know many people who are right in their lifetime, and find such a statement incredibly sad thing. It must be hard to live life not believing you can ever be right.
Edited by - honorman on 07/21/2003 1:35:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/21/2003 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | ALbert and Laika come to mind - especially Laika's repeated sarcasm as if ANYONE could possibly disagree with Open Theism they are a moron.
The more I learn, the more I realize that I don't know much. The most ignorant people seem to think they know it all. I am not ashamed to admit that I am limited, that I don't know everything, and that I can't truly know everything about God.
And for the sake of argument, debaters all the time argue positions with which they don't necessarily agree (and lawyers). It is a good thing to expand your mind, if you argue from a position you don't agree with, you are then forced to open your mind to see that yes, the other side does indeed have a point. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/21/2003 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | RD: saying someone is a moron is not the same thing as saying that open theism is the only way. Also, your comments backoff from what you said before AND what I was commenting on: the fact that you said you would never say you were right.
Granted, everyone should try and learn from what others believe. In fact, I, for one, have learned weaknesses of my own position and how better to defend it by listening to others. I have also learned that open theists can be very closed and calvinists can be very open. But I stand by what I said. If you firmly believe that you would never say you are right, RD, then I have no interest in what you have to say and little respect for it. I may completely disagree with a calvinist, I may even think they are thickheaded (as I am sure they think I am as well), but I have nothing but respect for those who passionately believe that they are rightly dividing the word and truly believe that their view of God's word is right. I would rather be wrong in my passion than hesitant in indecision.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/21/2003 2:57 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
RD: I have not called anyone a moron. Given Fleetwood's posts, I think my response was totally appropriate. But that is something for me to answer for. I would also point out that I made a reasoned, on the topic response in my first post, and no-one has bothered to interact with it or show me where I was wrong. Perhaps I was a bit too accurate?
As for your comments on open theism, yes, my God does allow those things, but only because he cannot *justly* stop them without bringing on judgement day. God does not bring on judgement day, because he wants to give more time for people to repent. God is a just God and abides by his own laws. Furthermore, it is not true to say that he does nothing to stop it. He pleads with people to turn from their sins. He sent his son to earth to reveal his nature and urge people to turn to him and be reconciled. And one day he WILL bring on judgement day.
But their is a world, a universe, of difference, between saying that, and saying that God causes people to do evil. I find it totally amazing that people can blithly assert that God causes people to do evil, but then quibble about his power. My friends, a God who causes people to do evil is not worth believing in. Such a God is the devil.
PREACH!!!
P.S., RD thinks people who disagree with her statements and challenge them are somehow accusing HER of being a moron. She did the same thing to me once as well, albert. I also never called her that. It's a curious thing.
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 07/21/2003 8:21:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2003 3:40 PM (GMT -6) | | I tried to find a picture (Its what I do around here...) related to: "throwing the first stone" but couldn't.
All I could find is this Stonefish.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2003 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm glad that we won't be throwing the STONEFISH.
(The Stonefish is glad too...) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:07 PM (GMT -6) | | LOL. I really wonder if when it gets down to it the determinists truly believe all things are determined by God. If they did, they would by definition be wasting their time and effort trying to convert an Open Theist to their way of thinking.
Kind of reminds me of when William Carey approached his Calvinistic denominational leaders in late 18th century England about his sensing a call by God to go to India as a missionary. The denominational board told him, "Mr. Carey, when God is ready to save the Hindus, He will."
Edited by - John Earp on 07/21/2003 9:18:56 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:23 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh boy - funny how this site has the capacity to madden me much more than atheist sites....when i say "someone called someone else a moron" I am speaking figuratively. When someone says what they believe, and the response from an OVer is "well you believe in a God who is a murderer, blah blah blah "- what else is the implication then, that you could believe in some such being, you must be a moron.
If you've read ANY Calvin or Edwards, or even recently, RC Sproul , etc., you would see that they do NOT believe God is a murderer. Charles Spurgeon said that man is COMPLETELY responsible for his status in life- for his sin. But that God bestows mercy on whom he chooses to. This is far different than saying that God is the author of sin.
Honorman - you are entitled to disrespect me if you so choose. I won't lose any sleep over it. It's merely a difference of opinion then. I far more respect someone willing to say that they could be wrong than someone who dogmatically asserts a position which is impossible to be proven correct or incorrect (as all religious propositions are, on this earth).
And Earp - have you ever considered that perhaps the way God works, is by using people to influence others- in other words, God is using people in the causal chain. I actually like that comment, that when God is ready to Save Hindus, he will. I believe that God saves everyone whom he wills to save. Now, how he does that, I admit, I am at a loss for. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Terry_Baxter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert and John,
Blessings on you both.
Much has been made of the hatchet jobs that anti-OV apologists do when "refuting" its tenets. No other argument in Christian theology is as one sided as this one where OV'ers clearly have the better scriptural, historical, and logical evidence on their side. I suspect that's one reason why the argument in Evangelical circles because so shrill so fast.
I think, to be respectful, you'd want to offer them the courtesy you say they don't offer you.
To wit: many Calvinist-leaning thinkers (traditionalists) make a distinction between God causing events, and people's compatiblistic free will chosing them the way God foreknew they would be. True, OV'ers use the argument that if God foreknows that I will choose X, then it cannot be otherwise, therefore God is the cause of my action in some sense, but your interlocuters clearly disagree on philosophical/definitional grounds.
You may not buy their argument (just as the foolish antagonists in this thread don't buy the argument that a God who could stop rape but doesn't is "just"), but that doesn't mean you can assume the postion you're trying to prove. It drives you nuts when they do it, right?
Unless I missed something and most OV opponents are proclaiming "Glory to God for rapes and murders, His will be done" it's not fair dinkum to paint them with that brush.
TB
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | | OK, Terry, will you tell me your theory about why God does not stop rapes? It can't be b/c he is powerless to do so. Even if he cannot see the future at all, he can see the present, and he can see a rape about to be enacted. Yet he does not intervene (in the vast majority of cases - since rapes happen to innocent people all the time). So what is the explanation then? | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
OK, Terry, will you tell me your theory about why God does not stop rapes? It can't be b/c he is powerless to do so. Even if he cannot see the future at all, he can see the present, and he can see a rape about to be enacted. Yet he does not intervene (in the vast majority of cases - since rapes happen to innocent people all the time). So what is the explanation then?
Perhaps against my better judgment, to respond to an angry woman,  I will take a stab at this good question. The explanation is simply this : God has given all freedom to choose morally (or immorally). If freedom is taken away as soon as the Father sees it is going to be abused, then it isn't freedom in the first place. And lest we should think like Deists, it must be noted that God answers prayer.
By the way, I'm sure that the Hindus that William Carey (the father of modern evangelical missions) DID win to the Lord were quite happy and eternally blessed because Carey didn't listen to the old fogeys on that board.
"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 7/21/2003 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | The fact that you said "angry woman" speaks volumes.
"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 7/21/2003 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The fact that you said "angry woman" speaks volumes.
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis
Well, your statement: "funny how this site has the capacity to madden me much more than atheist sites" made me think you were in fact angry. That you are a female I have no problem with, really.
As to your question about "links in the causal chain," no, I have NEVER considered that. (John now is flapping his lips with his index finger).
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 07/21/2003 10:17:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/21/2003 5:23 PM (GMT -6) | | This "conversation" is utterly ridiculous. RD, I too find much greater pleasure conversing with atheists than with open theists.
Where do you even get off Albert telling me I believe in a God who CAUSES rape? Or making the, may I use the word STUPID, comment that Calvinists believe God causes rape and murder? It is obvious that you and others in here know very little about Calvinism and as I suggested before, are not only antagonist towards it but are literally prejudice towards Calvinists.
You know what you are doing don't you? You are scapegoating John Calvin, a man who is not even alive to defend himself. When all eyes are turned on you asking you the tough questions that expose the holes and flaws with open theism, you turn the conversation to a "You #$*# Calvinist, you believe God causes murder!" so as to infuriate your opposition and evade the questions that open theism simply cannot answer.
Albert, guess we'll find out whose "right" and whose "wrong" in heaven, eh BUDDY? Until then, I'm not too worried Bro. By the way, you totally do not understand Calvnism. NO Calvinist accuses God of causing every evil act ever committed. Get your facts straight if you are going to talk about Calvinism which you seem to do quite a bit. I would say this to Earp as well.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/21/2003 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | From Calvin's own Institutes:
"..it is very wicked merely to investigate the causes of God's will, for his will is, and rightly ought to be, the cause of all things that are."..."For God's will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because he has willed it. But if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 1
"...the will of God is not only free of all fault but is the highest rule of perfection, and even the law of all laws." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 2
"But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding." Bk 3, Ch 23, s. 6
Edited by - John Earp on 07/21/2003 10:29:26 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/21/2003 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/21/2003 5:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
And your point would be....?
I was responding to Fleetwood, when he said:
By the way, you totally do not understand Calvnism. NO Calvinist accuses God of causing every evil act ever committed. Get your facts straight if you are going to talk about Calvinism which you seem to do quite a bit. I would say this to Earp as well.
Edited by - John Earp on 07/21/2003 10:36:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 106 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:48 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 |
|
|