 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Summary and Critical Review of the Anthropomorphic | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:21 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hmmmmm...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote:
"PS: By the way, in looking at your post, I think that you may have a misunderstanding of what "conditional unity" means, as far as the human constitution. You may want to look that up. Just a hint."
I am not an educated person, as my responses would tend to bear out therefore I do attempt to research the varied and coded terms and phrases so I don't sound more stupid than necessary. In my research I uncovered this artical (below) and determined it was NOT what you were suggesting. I applied my common sense (usually a mistake) and assumed you were referencing a unity of body/soul which was conditional. I chose to understand "conditional" as the experience of a condition or the requsite OF a condition. I then concluded that, based upon these suppositions, your assertion was that our existence or our innate condition required a unity of body/soul. If I could prove that we exist APART from our body then your assertion (hopelessly lost in presupposition, granted) would be proved false.
I will endeavor to be more accurate in the future.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF WESTERN ORTHODOXY
By the Rev'd David F. Abramtsov
___________________________________________
The Edinoverie (literally, united-faith or one-belief) was called a conditional unity. It was known as such because of the agreement reached whereby certain of the schismatic Old Ritualists entered into communion with the Church and received a lawful priesthood from the Church on the condition that they were permitted to retain the old "uncorrected" liturgical books and rites. Since they were received into ecclesiastical unity, the Old Ritualists did not form a new Church but became part of the Orthodox Church. But since their unity was conditional they kept their peculiar practices which distinguished them from the other Orthodox. The Edinoverie exists to this day in Soviet Russia.
http://www.westernorthodox.com/wohistory.htm
P.S. I am working on the full reply and expect to have it for you in a bit.
Warren
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:21 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: Hmmmmm...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mephi
> Honestly, I'm straight up astonished. Not only
> at your light treatment of heresy, but also your
> statements in general. You've got some spunk,
> I gots to hand it to you.
Well not having an Amen corner nor a bevy of revered fathers to which to appeal leaves me in a vacuum of complements so I will take them as I can get them, backhanded as they sometimes are.
>This is what I'm hearing from your argument as
> a whole:
> "The definition of Christ as defined by the
> Council of Chalcedon was, at best, incomplete.
> Humanity is NOTHING SHORT OF spiritual
> beings "in a confined material reality" In Christ,
> God was human in that He merely placed his
> spirit into a confined material reality. Badaboo,
> badabing. We have the Incarnation. This is a
> direct link between ALL humanity and the
> Christ: the fact that we are BOTH spiritual
> beings confined in material bodies"
> If this is right, then, my friend, you are indeed
> a wholesale Apollinarian.
Really now? Hmm...
Apollinarianism
The heresy of Apollinarianism is named after Apollinarius, bishop of Antioch. From about AD 360 onwards his theory that Christ had no human soul or spirit, but a divine one, began circulate among the Christian thinkers. It was an attempt by Appolinarius to reason that Jesus was free of sin, purely divine.
This led to a series of edicts by church councils which condemned Apollinarianism as heresy. It was found that Apollinarius' idea of a Christ without a human soul, made his suffering meaningless, turned his prayers into a charade. Only if Christ also possessed a human soul and spirit could he have suffered temptation, etc. Apollinarianism was not at all of the threat to traditional Christianity as Arianism was. The many edicts against it suppressed it early on and it merely survived until the AD 420's.
--http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/heresy.html
It is my understanding that there is flesh and there is spirit, one being corporeal/material and the other being incorporeal/immaterial. That which is "flesh" is "flesh" a simple statement of kinship or commonality and that which is "spirit" is "spirit" in like manner. We see that the same word used for man's spirit is the same one used for God's spirit and even evil spirits, "pneuma". The principle the Scriptures assert is "after its KIND" a given thing will reproduce. I find nothing to suggest that God didn't do precisely this when He created Adam. For numerous reasons the Scriptures assert that we are not pets of God nor cattle owned by God but children of God who can choose to accept or reject Him as our Father. Moreover we have the testament of the Law and its universality over all SPIRITUAL agents up to and including God, Himself. God would not and legally could not hold us accountable to His code of Morality if we weren't of His kind, no more than we could hold a dog Morally accountable for lying. And finally the Life of Christ demonstrates that God asks nothing of us that He Himself is not willing to undergo. This would be, as I have repeatedly asserted, ridiculous if we are not dealing with sameness of ontology, that is Christ HAD to be like us for His demonstration to have any relevance to ourselves. What would it prove to have a foot race with a Cheetah, or a swimming contest with a Dolphin.
So to answer your question, No I do not believe that Christ had a "human" spirit but neither do I believe I have a "human" spirit for there is no such thing AS a "human" spirit in that they are of innately DIFFERENT substances one being material and the other being immaterial.
> No doubt about that.
I suppose I am guilty as charged, I guess... I think... probably.
> Moreover you say that my definition of what it
> means to be human precludes Christ from
> being truly human. Here is what I said about
> being human.
> 1) Being a creation
Was Christ a "creation"?
> 2) NOT being God
Was Christ "not God"?
> 3) Being limited
Was Christ "limited"?
> 4) Being composed of spiritual and
> non-spiritual components in a conditional
> unity.
Was Christ composed of spiritual and non-spiritual components in a conditional unity... no really, was he!?
> Hmmm...now I want you to do me a favor. In
> your minds eye, picture this picture of Chris
> qua Chalcedonian Creed. (I will assume here
> that you know this)
In point of fact I do, just finished reading it once again.
> Now, let's take away the divine aspects of this
> equation for a moment. Would we have a
> human being, according to my definitions?
I am not sure however one thing I AM sure about is that with your definition of "human" you COULDN'T have the incarnation; God with us in the flesh, as the Scriptures assert.
> It seems to me that you are doing JUST what
> Apolonius and some other cats did trying to
> oversimplify the Incarnation. I've got MAD
> problems with your schema.
How wonderful! To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott, the next best thing to an honorable friend is an honorable enemy. Being that I don't have any theologically "honorable" friends makes you tops in my book!
> But before I get into that...I need more info.
> Please answer the following question:
> What is the difference(s) between "Theotakos"
> (Bearer of God) and "Christotakos" (Bearer of
> Christ) in your view? I am assuming that you
> know to WHOM the terms refer. Be specific,
> giving a thorough answer explaining your
> reasoning.
LOL!!! You are just playing with me now!
The concept of Theotakos to me is naive for Mother references a biological kinship, a material relationship which DOES NOT transcend into the immaterial realm. That is, my parents are not my spiritual progenitors but rather my essence is of God Himself, by Himself. Mary had nothing to do with the formation or creation of Jesus' essence, hence she was NOT the "Mother of God".
As to the comparison between theotakos and christotakos, of that I cannot say for I cannot find any information on the latter, not in the RCC encyclopedia nor in any of the RCC or EOC sources I possess. However I have a couple of EOC friends who most probably know the term and can articulate it for me.
I hope this sets the stage for your devastating theological onslaught.
--Warren
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:22 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Installment #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb,
This is an attempt to outline what I understand you to mean when you say all God’s self-revelation to man is anthropomorphic. I hope this summary in my own terms accurately reflects what you have been writing. Do I understand you correctly? If not, please clarify or correct it. I am very much interested in this topic. Here is my summary.
1. God created anthropos, the universe in which we live and our ability to think about ourselves, our universe and our creator God, which is inherent in being a creature made in his image. Since anthropos cannot think outside of our God-given ability, God must accommodate his revelation of himself to us in ways that comport with our capacity to think. Thus all his communication to anthropos must be anthropomorphic. That is, God must describe his being, attributes and actions in terms and ways that are understandable to anthropos. He must speak to anthropos as an anthropos speaks to another anthropos about anything and everything. Thus God speaks of his being, attributes and actions as if he were an anthropos, for we simply could not understand him if he spoke in any other thought pattern.
2. Within God’s disclosure of himself, which is entirely anthropomorphic, he uses similes, figures of speech, metaphors, allegories, symbols, etc, but we should not think of anthropomorphism as a type of speech within the language, but rather the kind of language itself.
3. Within anthropos land, there are a multitude of languages that are spoken. Thus God must communicate about himself to those of numerous languages through things that are common to all anthropos, not just one language group.
4. God communicates to all anthropos about himself through creation, which is common to all, in spite of various languages. Thus God created the world to speak of him everywhere we turn. God is reflected in the very things he created. Thus in anthropomorphic communication, we come to know God by way of analogy. For example, the sun is an indicator that God is light. God created the sun with the deliberate purpose of giving anthropos something by which to grasp what God is like. No matter to which language group we belong, all anthropos know they cannot look at the sun intently without going blind. That unapproachable light speaks volumes about God, irrespective of our native tongue. The vastness of space points to the immenseness of the Creator. The erupting volcano hints at his enormous power. God is analogous to that which he has created. Created things are intelligible to anthropos and God uses that understanding to give glimpses of himself. Anthropomorphic communication is filled with analogous relationships between created things that are understandable to anthropos and God who does not reveal himself directly. Even creation demonstrates God reveals himself indirectly rather than face to face. The unapproachable light of the sun is a minuscule indication of what God is like. It is thus inconceivable that a finite anthropos could stand face to face with God and live. Yet anthropomorphic communication has been misunderstood because many anthropos have become enamored with the pictures and turned to worship the created thing rather than the Creator. The very things that were created to act as pointers to God have been viewed as pointing to themselves. Creation is thus deified.
5. Next God communicates to anthropos by his written word. In his word he speaks about himself by using analogies that are common to all anthropos, regardless of their language. He is a rock, a shield, water, bread; the analogies are countless in Scripture. So God communicates with us through reference to commonplace things that have a universal language and says, “I am your protector, your food, your drink, your life, your sure foundation, your satisfaction.” Again, anthropos can become enchanted with the pointers and venerate the bread and wine, for example, and miss the substance of the message. The symbols are thus reified.
6. In his written word, God speaks to anthropos as if he were an anthropos and yet differentiates himself from anthropos. Thus he speaks of possessing the physical features of anthropos, of having emotions, of doing activities that we do. And yet he asserts he is not an anthropos. Again, anthropos can become enthralled with the analogies and forget they are analogies. God is thus humanized.
7. Lastly in salvation history, God communicated to anthropos as an anthropos. God stepped into anthropos land by becoming flesh and lived among us as an anthropos. Veiled in flesh, God spoke face to face with anthropos. Unapproachable light hid the light inside of flesh to come as close as possible to anthropos to accomplish salvation. His teaching is anthropomorphic and analogical. Think about it. If you were Peter or John or Mary or Salome, how would you have been able to understand that Jesus of Nazareth was God become flesh? All of our understanding of Jesus is dependent on what God revealed in the Old Testament. God created rocks (which have meaning to us), placed anthropos amongst them, gave a meaning to a rock in the wilderness that speaks of himself and then sent Christ who described himself in terms of the rock. God created water (which has meaning to us), gave meaning to that water in the wilderness that speaks of himself and then Christ declared, “I am the water of life.” God gave manna as a backdrop in order to understand the Bread of Life. The tabernacle was a physical representation of the separation between God and anthropos and the means necessary to approach him. Without that, how would we understand Jesus and his work? How can we understand being acquitted by the Judge unless we can think about a human category regarding judges? How would we comprehend the significance of the blood of Christ if sacrificial blood was unfamiliar to us? Without the exodus, we would not understand the new exodus. Every category of thought regarding salvation is rooted deeply in pictures in salvation history. All these categories of thought were in place so that Jesus could be understood when he stepped into anthropos land. All the anthropomorphic language made God understandable in salvation history in a progressively more intelligible way and then terminated upon Christ. Take away Old Testament history, filled with analogies and pictures, and we will not understand anything about Christ. Even though the Substance has come, and the scaffolding has been stripped away from the building, we still must think about Christ analogically. For example, we have moved from actually sacrificing lambs to remembering the once for all sacrifice of Christ.
8. So I understand you to say, since all God’s revelation comes to us in anthropomorphic language, it is improper to pick out any individual biblical text and identify it as using anthropomorphic language in contrast to other texts. Thus both 1 Samuel 15:11 and 29, both Genesis 3:8-11 and 6:6, are anthropomorphic because all Scripture is anthropomorphic. These texts are examples of accommodations to aid humans to understand God within our God-given capacity. And thus, while the Scripture is full of God revealing himself to us as if he were a man, there is more than adequate evidence in that very revelation that indicates he stands in sharp contrast to man. And if any reader misses that, he plainly declares to us that he is not a man.
I have appreciated reading your postings and your patience with being misunderstood rather frequently. I do not want to misinterpret what you have written. Therefore I hope my summary accurately reflects what you have been writing. Do I understand you correctly? If not, please clarify or correct it.
Pilgrim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Pilgrim Hits the Mark, I Believe!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim,
In my eyes, you've summarized Lion QUITE well. Quite well indeed. I just can't understand what all the misunderstanding is about. Can you? Are you, me, and Lion the only people who get the "anthropomorphism" thing or what?
Meph
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:23 AM (GMT -6) | | GDG checks in and checks out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-gads! I thought this topic was fading fast--until I checked in this afternoon and found thirteen (or something) new posts!
Mephi, Pilgrim, thanks for stepping in and clarifying your perspective. I will read Mephi's attempt at representing LL and Pilgrim's thoughts on the issue and then try to come up with a response. It might be a couple days, sorry.
Later, GDG
p.s. Hey Mephi (or anyone), have you read David Tracy's "Blessed Rage for Order"? I just started it and Tracy has some interesting insights on this topic. I'll try to pick out some choice tidbits to share.
p.p.s. Mephi, thanks for telling your story. I was hoping you would.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:23 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: GDG checks in and checks out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oops, in all the new posts I didn't even notice that LL had posted a clarification of his views as well. I'll be sure to read that one too. Later fellas. GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:24 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Installmen t #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim,
Rejoice! You have understood me correctly. Hey! You give me some hope that I have expressed understandable concepts. I may express a few matters differently, but none of that would be greatly consequential. As time permits, I may identify a few of those places where I might like to express matters with a slightly different nuance. For now, I will identify only two items, the first two.
To your first point, I would simply illustrate it by pointing to John 12:28-32. When God the Father speaks to his Son, the people do not understand. Some think it was thunder. Others think an angel spoke.
Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
Jesus’ comments are noteworthy, for two reasons. First, Jesus says that the heavenly voice was for their benefit, not his own. How was it beneficial to them, if they did not understand what was said? Though they did not understand, the very fact that the voice from heaven spoke sufficed to signal that this one called Jesus was from heaven. Second, the fact that God does not make his words plain to the people signals his judgment upon the world, just as Jesus clarifies: Now is the time for judgment on this world. The fact that God speaks but does not make his speech intelligible to the people is itself a signal of impending judgment.
I would express your second point slightly differently: Within God’s disclosure of himself, revelation that is wholly anthropomorphic in nature, God employs a full range of figures of speech—similes, metaphors, allegories, symbols, types, signs, foreshadows, etc., but we should not think of anthropomorphism simply as a kind of figure of speech within the language God employs to reveal himself. Rather, the kind of language God uses is itself anthropomorphic, for the only kind of language that is fitting for God to use with his human creatures is their own language. In other words, while the adjective anthropomorphic is a term that properly describes the very language of communication God employs to reveal himself, anthropomorphism, the noun, is properly a term that names a subset of God’s self-portrayal language, as does metaphor, simile, sign, symbol, etc., etc.
I’ll review the remainder of your note and ponder any other slight adjustments I might make. But clearly, you have grasped my thoughts.
Lion-Lamb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:24 AM (GMT -6) | | : Mephi Attempts To Mediate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
note to my boys Mephistopheles and Lion heart (and all ease droppers)
Meph, you da bomb. but let me lay it straight up: do you believe God "loves" you? seems to this genius that every reason you gave in this posting for rejecting the notion that God truly changes his mind would also require that you reject the notion that he truly "loves" you? conversamente, if you believe God "truly" loves you, wouldn't every reason you could give to believe this also be a reason favoring the notion that he "truly" changes his mind? how far you carry'n the anthropomorphic deal? what criteria you using to say this far and no further?
seems to moi, if you were consistent, you'd be trapped in the infinite abyss of the ol "via negativa..." you could say noth'n bout the supreme being positive, only what he ain't!
then you say you cross the infinite "gap" with the leap of the famous dane, la Kierkegaard. you have faith! now, myself, i like leaps of faith. i take'em all the time when skating. but i'm wondering, what do you have faith in? (thanks pilgrim for the bold tip). nother way of asking this is like this: if scripture doesn't reveal God as a "truly" is (yet it "truly" reveals God?????), what do you "truly" have faith in? that God "loves" you? that God "changes his mind" when its perfect to do so?
we all have to take the Maker at his word in the book. but that includes the word "I change my mind" as much as it does "I love you." You don't have faith God "changes his mind" cuz you're sure he's not like this, since he's not a man. (has anyone on any thread anywhere in the cosmic universe except Mormonville claimed God was a man). but then you shouldn't have faith God "loves you," since, after all senior Meph, he ain't a man. why not just have faith God changes his mind AND loves you -- but in a way that goes beyond what humans do, since God is not a man.?
now to the lion: my man, the Doc is on the up on this score. you cite the contrast in I Sam 15:29 to tell you God doesn't truly change his mind. gocha. this verse and Nu. 23 are clearly you're trump cards. these two passages that say "God is not a man that he should lie or repent" are then used to overturn the -- what is it? -- 40 verses that say he does change his mind (where no contrast is present) and the 80+ verses that imply he changes his mnd -- plus all the regret, disappointment, surprise, etc.. verses. frankly, this seems bizzaro. just because there's a contrast here, you read it into all the other passages where no contrast is present. not smooth. but, more to the point...
you're response proves doc's point that you're differences are about exegesis, not a "theology of language." for the point you're making depends on a particular way of interpreting these two verses. you know the open view interprets them differently. maybe the doc uses "literal" too loosely (i still remember your grammar lesson several weeks ago). but whatever else he means, he grants that God's way of changing his mind, etc... goes beyond what the (necessarily human conditioned) texts convey. you both are down on the language piece. no problemas. its exegesis.
and, curious to this cat, you place a whole lot of weight on your particular exegesis of two verses.
scottie beam me up
got a book to read
till i
shine150
skater
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:25 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: Mephi Attempts To Mediate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skate,
As one skater might say to another, "Whatever!"
Lion-Lamb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:25 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Installmen t #2 Necessary Summary Thoughts on Image of God
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
apologize for the on-going bold in my last posting. haven't mastered the bold thing yet. If i practive it more and more, maybe i'll get better and better.? read further on the thread and found Pilgrim's marvelous summary.
i don't see that G-D-G, or i, or doc has not understood this.
here's my question for the hour.
say i agree with everything Pilgrim said, which itself is what Lion said -- many times (he has the patience of a.... lamb.). why should i not still believe that God "truly" loves me? you say, "you should". you must just remember that God's love transcends all human love. his language of love to me has been accomodated so as to speak to "anthropos."
got it. thank you. but why should i not similarly believe God "truly" experiences surprise, changes his mind, etc.? i must just remember that God's surprise, mind changing, etc. transcends all imperfect ways humans experience surprise, mind changes, etc.?
as others have argued, you guys draw inconsistent conclusions from your (perhaps even correct) understanding of the anthropomorphic nature of all language.
once again, its not a difference in "the theology of language" that distinguishes open and non-open folk. least not as far as i can see. its exegesis.
and on this score, of course, open folk have the slam dunk.(:
Shine on at 150
skater
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Response to Shine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsis of What I hear Shine saying:
"If you are saying that everything revealed about God is anthropomorphic language, doesn't that include God's love? Does this mean that God doesn't "really" love us, but reveals himself such that, from our anthropomorphic standpoint, He loves us? IF you accept God's 'love' in these terms, how come you can't accept God changing his mind in the same terms? It seems to me that you could accept God changing his mind and stuff like that JUST AS EASILY as you can accept God's love in these terms."
Mephi:
Hmmm...I see where you are coming from, and obviously, you are able to grapple with what I've said. However, I also don't necessarily think that you fully read or thought out the implications of what I said. I thought that I illustrated my logic about HOW saying that God had inconsistency in deliberation (which is WHAT changing one's mind esssentially is) and other centrally human activities did not clearly reconcile with the more clear things that the Bible has to say about God, especially with regard to his methodology of revealing Himself to humankind. Read my post again. Yes, the concept of "love" as far as it's actions and dispositions towards humankind would fall under the rubric of anthropomorphic language according to what I'm saying. However, the theme of love is obviously PERVASIVE in Scripture...and extremely so. I'm talking from God's expression of Himself in terms of marriage with Israel all the way to God's coming in Christ and beyond. This is a CLEAR doctrine that someone would have to be deaf and blind to miss in Scripture. I do NOT believe that, given what Scripture has to say about God, it is a completely coherent view that God's emotional, psychological, and volitional completely matches that of humanity in the direct manner that you are trying to state. Remember one of my questions much earlier about all the theophanies, visions and such about God...about ANYONE seeing God as He actually was. As I said before, I find it MUCH more consistent to interpret God's supposed humanlike acts in terms of God NOT being human and being wholly other than all creation infinitely than the other option. I want you to really think about it...and I believe that you will see what I'm saying.
I notice something else. You seem to speak of an "Nth degree" type view of God. In other words, God does exactly the same TYPE of emotional, psychological, and volitional things that human beings do, but He does them on a infinitely "purer" and "more good" LEVEL than humans ever could. Therefore, you are saying that God changes his mind, but ONLY in a morally pure and "perfect" way. You say:
"if scripture doesn't reveal God as a "truly" is (yet it "truly" reveals God?????), what do you "truly" have faith in? that God "loves" you? that God "changes his mind" WHEN ITS PERFECT TO DO SO?" (Emphasis Mine)
I'm sure that you understand this STILL doesn't avoid the naive realistic suppositions that are obviously being used on the text. You are saying that God's moral and psychological actions have a DIRECT relationship to humanity's, though just more morally pure as far as motivation. Surely, you see this. Anyways, here is a point I definitely want to make. If you want to conduct your religious activity under the assumption God changes his mind like a human being, THAT'S COOL. Let me say that again. If you want to pray, speak to God, repent, etc. under the assumption that God acts JUST LIKE A PERSON WOULD with the potential of relenting disaster and stuff like that, that is just fine. Actually, I think that this is the way people HAVE done it for eons. One can do that just fine as long as they don't make the mistake of taking PRAGMATIC EFFECT for the ontological reality of the situation! But as I see it, pragmatic effect is not enough for many open view theists. Why? Because of a predetermined view of "love" and "free will" that foists itself upon their worldview as a whole. I am willing to accept a fairly pragmatic understanding of Scripture, according to my Kierkegaardian leap AND my critical realist suppositions. However, openness theologians' aversions to doctrines of 1) predestination 2)determinism of any type and 3) their corresponding implications for the problem of evil FORCE them to search for naive realist conceptions that can be used to escape the implications.
Shine, let's be completely honest now. If open view theists REALLY could accept the prospect of predetermination, soft determinism, and God being the ultimate cause of all evil, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. You know just as well as I do that my viewpoint has NO real pragmatic change of effect in religious behavior as far as prayer, repentence and all that stuff. However, it does do two things. 1) It takes away the libertarian sense of free will and 2) It provides for a difficult problem of evil. It is THESE things that openness theologians want to get away from. You know this and I know this. Anyways, what do I have faith in? Again, I have faith in the revelation and the God revealed in that revelation. Long story short, I believe that God "loves" me because it is this, my friend, that the Bible indicates is the central thrust behind redemptive history itself, including the coming of Christ. But I do not believe that the revelation lends itself NATURALLY to the naive realistic implications that you have set for it. And I don't think a good case can be made to say that it does.
I hope that what I've said here makes sense.
Later, man,
Mephi2K
PS: What did you think about Section 4 of my "Installment #1" on the "Dogmatism" thread? I'd really like your opinion on that. LOL
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:26 AM (GMT -6) | | God responsibl e for evil?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't know where to put this because I took it from the, "What's your story thread?" and I want to keep with the nature of personal stories, so I put it here. But Meph said:
"In our context, God was a good God and the Devil was a bad devil...and that was all there was to it. Sure, God had ultimate power over the devil, but it was the Devil and humans (NOT God) that was the ultimate cause of all the evil in the world."
And Meph, you also used the analogy of a maze. God doesn't control every move, but he is still responsible for all the "parameters" of the maze. Which is why you don't blame God (directly), but Satan for evil (contrary to earlier postings in which you state God *IS* ultimately responsible for evil, for he set up the maze.)
Doesn't all of this presuppose the "gap" thingy again? I mean, why can't you conclude that if God is not only responsible for the "parameters" of the maze, that in his infinite knowledge, he would set up the rules of the maze and the flow of the maze and hence the outcome of the maze? Really, why don't you just blame God for evil? Even allowing for the "freedom" of the individual, God sure seems as if he "steered" it such a way as to make him not just *ultimately* responsible for evil, but *really* ulitmately responsible for evil.
Go easy on me guy.
Brandon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:26 AM (GMT -6) | | God responsibl e for evil?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, this is getting really freaky to me. Meph said:
""In our context, God was a good God and the Devil was a bad devil...and that was all there was to it. Sure, God had ultimate power over the devil, but it was the Devil and humans (NOT God) that was the ultimate cause of all the evil in the world."
and then in the post above
"Shine, let's be completely honest now. If open view theists REALLY could accept the prospect of predetermination, soft determinism, and God being the ultimate cause of all evil, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion."
Which is it? Is he the ultimate cause or not?
Brandon
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:27 AM (GMT -6) | | God responsibl e for evil? Uh huh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo, Brandon,
Say, man. I'm really sorry for the confusion there. It's my bad. I saw the ambiguity in that statement after I posted it, but I didn't think it would be a big deal. Anyways, with this statement:
"In our context, God was a good God and the Devil was a bad devil...and that was all there was to it. Sure, God had ultimate power over the devil, but it was the Devil and humans (NOT God) that was the ultimate cause of all the evil in the world."
Mephi:
When I said "In our context...", what I meant to say was the context of the SEMINARY where Joe and I was. This wasn't meant to reflect our views. Again, I saw the ambiguity of the statement itself, but I figured that the rest of the context would show the actual meaning. Sorry, my bad. I assumed too much.
*************************************************
You say:
"Really, why don't you just blame God for evil? Even allowing for the "freedom" of the individual, God sure seems as if he "steered" it such a way as to make him not just *ultimately* responsible for evil, but *really* ulitmately responsible for evil."
Mephi:
Indeed I do. Though sentient beings who are not God (angels, humans, etc) are the ones who of their own volitions commit evil acts, God, due to who He is, is ultimately behind all the events that we see in history. I never shy away from that claim. My story kind of alludes to that and I've pretty much stated it flat out in some of my earlier posts. I have no problem with that at all. All things work according to God's purposes in the end. I have to find it but I KNOW that I've gone over this before in my discussions here. I recall G-D-G jokingly saying that my view reminded her of Captain Amazing from "Mystery Men"...LOL
[Note: If you will notice, I have a very good memory. That's generally how I can go back to any of my posts and get what I need in reestablishing a prior claim. I remember most everything that I've said on this board and the contexts in which they fit. It helps out a lot in discussion, as you see. ]
At any rate, I will sum up my view using some former posts.
From my 11/01/00 10:15 PM post:
"My view of God's overarching plan for His creation is best termed "redemptive history." Redemptive history is the panoramic view of all existence in general, and human history in particular, in which God has actualized a reality that would be conducive to His progressive self-revelation to creation. This reality takes the form of a redemptive plan to reconcile all things under his ultimate and universally recognized control after a time of misused delegated authority and cosmic rebellion. The instigator of the rebellion is the Satan (adversary). The apex of the creative event and delegated authority figure is humanity. Lastly, the climax of the redemptive history is Jesus Christ, the culmination of God's progressive revelation to mankind as well as the means of the salvific experience. God actualized this timeline, according to his own will, fully and exhaustively aware of all the consequences that would emerge (sin, death, etc.), but also knowing what tremendous reconciliation and exaltation would exist at the consummation of his plan."
and...
"If I may simplify things, to me God has erected a big obstacle course called "life" That God knows this course exhaustively is pretty much irrelevent. In this course, we are to work for good and oppose the evil. Jesus is the epiphany of God, as it were, that gives us not only the perfect model, but also the perfect MEANS through which to oppose the cosmic mutiny. We are to use our power of choice to work for against Satan and recognize God's supreme rule, according to my view of redemptive history. What does this show you? There IS a plan. A plan that works for the ultimate glorification of God, the chief of all "goods" A reality that, like a great painting, has a certain amount of light AND shadow in order to make a masterpiece."
Also from 12/08/00 3:55 PM
I affirm this: God is above good and evil, by the very nature of his being sole creator of a melioristic universe. It is absurd to refer to God as "all-good" (as many people understand the term) and acknowledge the vast amount of evil in the world, without in some way either 1) turning to nominalism (William of Ockham and, in some ways, Gordon Clark style) which tends to reduce the whole argument to tautological statements about God's morality [ex. God's acts are God's acts] or 2) doing violence to the very notion of "good". I do think that, given a type of natural theology that looks at the life-affirming paradigms that promote human fluoring and the amelioration of suffering, we can see by Creation something of God's character, as far as what human beings should be doing to promote life, health, and wholeness. I also believe that God's self-revealing acts in history, including the supreme revelation of God, Jesus the Christ, show that God is FOR the "good". In sum, though God is the ultimate originator and controller of both good AND evil, He reveals His nature to be FOR the good and AGAINST the evil and sin prevalent in the world, and encourages us likewise.
On the same post, I give a warning (to Beso, actually) that I STILL extend today...
"Again, this statement is a LOT more profound than it immediately lets on and is the product of months upon months of contemplation, reading, and prayer. This theological construct allows for the complete sovereignty of God while explaining the existence of evil. If you want to further discuss it, that's cool. But I'm warning you in advance, the explanations can quite deep. If you don't like going into a lot of philosophical and theological nuances, then we'd best leave it at this."
Mephi:
Hopefully, my story has given your insight into some of my experiences that can be said to have shaped my theology. Theologies don't form in a vaccuum and I, of all people, understand this. Hopefully, pulling together 1) my story 2) my methodology and presuppositions on the "Methods" post 3) My input on the "Inspiration" thread and 4) the statements above, everyone here should have a pretty good idea of what I believe and why I believe it. So, summing up, YEP, I believe that God is ultimately behind all evil...and that's fine by me. Do I like evil? Heck, no. I hate it. Do I love God as revealed in Jesus? You betcha. Do I fear God? I'd be an idiot not to do so. Hope this helps, my man!
Peace out,
Mephi2K
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:27 AM (GMT -6) | | : Response to Mephistoph eles III in e-minor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hommmmie,
time to dialogitate a bitg :
background to easedroppers: i'm asking why treat "love" differently than "changing mind" since both are supposedly anthropomorphic? i chime that the Meph-Lion-Lamb crowd is not consistent on the implications they draw from their view that all God talk is anthropomorphic. i even claim that one could accept ALL this and yet be an open theist.
Mephinski say back at skater: "I ...don't necessarily think that you fully read or thought out the implications of what I said. [no. i just diagreed with you.] I thought that I illustrated my logic about HOW saying that God had inconsistency in deliberation (which is WHAT changing one's mind esssentially is) and other centrally human activities did not clearly reconcile with the more clear things that the Bible has to say about God, especially with regard to his methodology of revealing Himself to humankind. Read my post again."
dude, i don't think i need to read your post again. i got your point. what i am not down with is how you can't see that the issue here is not about critical or naive realism. way odd. The matter is about what we presuppose is or is not worthy of God and Bible interpretation.
The issue has everything to do with your claim that "saying that God had inconsistency in deliberation (which is WHAT changing one's mind esssentially is) and other centrally human activities did not clearly reconcile with the more clear things that the Bible has to say about God". Note, my man,
a) you assume changing ones mind is a non-praiseworthy attribute. it is an "inconsistency in deliberation"... which is wrong, by the way. God is perfectly consistent, but about a reality that changes. and
b) you think God changing his mind does "not clearly reconcile with the more clear things that the Bible has to say about God". via la. its about exegesis. i of course totally, emphatically, passionately, intelligently and hyper-translucent spiritually disagree with this second point, but why debate it right now?
the POINT i and a few others have been trying to make stands. this issue is most assuredly and definitively not about a theology of language. it is about the above cited "a)" -- the assumption about what is and is not worthy of God; and "b)" -- bible interpretation. (e.g. does God changing his mind easily reconcile with other clear statements. which ones doesn't it reconcile with? I sam 15:29? only on Meph and Lions (erroneous) interpretation of this passage.
then i claim that God's attribute of changing his mind transcends his communicating it to anthropos, just as his "love" does. Meph responds: "You are saying that God's moral and psychological actions have a DIRECT relationship to humanity's, though just more morally pure as far as motivation."
to which i must certainly say: "no more so than
'God is love'." there's enough connection to establish meaning, enough distance to preserve God's supreme perfection. so of love. so of predestination and foreknowledge. so of changing his mind, regret and surprise. so far as i can see, you refuse the last three, but not the others, because you assume they are beneath God. i see them as part of God's perfection.
finally, Meph makes the point, "If open view theists REALLY could accept the prospect of predetermination, soft determinism, and God being the ultimate cause of all evil, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion." forgive me, my fine bud, but isn't this sort of obvious. (: check out this. "If you [whatever label you'd accept, cuz "classical theologians" ain't cutt'n it for ya ] REALLY could accept the prospect of a partly open future, of libertarian freedom, and God having nothing to do with evil, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion."
quid pro quo
Shine150
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Yo, Shine!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check it out. You've brought up some interesting stuff that I will tackle later, ESPECIALLY about the "praiseworthy" thing. But before ALL that...what did you think of Section 4 of the 1st Installment on the "Dogmatism" thread. I want your impressions!
Meph
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:28 AM (GMT -6) | | : Stepping back with some broader thoughts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if I hadn't said I would contribute to this discussion at some point, I probably would have backed out by now. This is most likely my sole tome at this board (and a tome, it is). As it is, I've not read the last 20 or so posts, I'm way behind in my communication with poets with little hope of catching up, and b/c of all sorts of real-life considerations, will probably be unable to regularly and actively participate here anytime soon (which is just as well b/c Mephi2K and Lion Lamb tend to have me MORE than covered-impressed, my good men ~~ or man and woman was it? dunno, can't keep track). I appreciate the people and dialogue here, however, and hope to come back and ghost this joint now and then. And I will, of course, read any replies to this post. Being that I'm theologically and philosophically fairly ignorant at this juncture, it is natural that I tangent into experience and more general comments/questioning, and that is all I hope to provide at this point. I don't at all mind playing the fool, but I hope you do not find it an offense if I veer away from the erudition…. A few personal notes first: gdg-enjoyed art discussion modes-kudos for intelligence matched with passion for the real thing-the experience. glad you mentioned anselm, will get back to him and isaiah 43:10 (which dances in my head every time I pop into this joint) in a moment…. yadha, yadha, yadha (and I don't mean seinfeld ) lion lamb & mephi-I'm with you on any number of things, including equality of motifs and that XY diagram from way back when. In fact, the afternoon before I read this thread, I'd been emailing a few folks about this whole openness biz, and I kept returning to how I cannot shake the sense that my theology (Whatever it should be called, it would be good to figure that one out someday, but then, as Luther said, "O that God should desire that my interpretation and that of all teachers should disappear, and each Christian should come straight to the word of God! You see from this babbling of mine the immeasurable difference between the word of God and all human words…. Go to the Bible itself, dear Christians, and let my expositions and those of all scholars be no more than a tool with which to build aright, so that we can understand, taste and abide in the simple and pure word of God; for God dwells alone in Zion.") …Well, I was saying that I cannot shake the sense that my theology really incorporates everything (as I understand it) that makes God big in both the classical and open camps, and how confining and constricting OVT feels to both my heart and mind despite the appealing name and the earnest arguments otherwise. So keep on keeping on here, I'm with you guys for the most part, even when I'm 10 steps behind. mephi-related LOTS to your autobio (not the boozing but the dark soul of the night and all that jazz) & very, very glad to see you considering a call to work at a secular university SO, a teacher I know was playing ESL bingo with kindergarten kids. For the chips, I had permanently loaned her this old beat up tootsie roll piggy bank full of pennies (good riddance) that has been taking up closet space. The eyes of the kids got really huge as they exclaimed, "Oh, you are RICH, Mrs. Shore!" Now, mind you this is an affluent school. These kids get a dollar more often than a handful of pennies. But if you had handed them a bank account slip in their name with $500 on it, they'd probably still consider the piggy bank with several dollars worth of pennies in it to be a better deal. It appears to offer so much more. Now there is that chance that there is a very valuable old penny in there, but if the child were to continue to protest against the older, wiser, more experienced adult that the piggy bank, indeed, was the better deal, well, it would just be naïvete, of value for its creativity and charm, but a foolishness that sooner or later should be put aside before the person is swindled of every truly rich treasure that might be theirs. Or would it really be naïve foolishness? If we are to be like children, what can we learn from the child's view? One: the pleasure of the here and now-of the sensorial experience without minding the past or the future overly much as we tend to. The shiny copper warming in the palm, perhaps the metallic taste as you hold one in your lips, the little clack as it hits the bingo square, the aerodynamic tendencies, the whir as it spins, etc. But then, there is a time for minding the lessons of the past about what is true and the meaning of relative value and thereby preparing for the future, as there is a time for listening to the adult (and a time for discarding or emending the words of the adult which are of no use). Two: The true appreciation of possibilities the adult long-discarded. Three: Sense of awe and wonder at the little things. The tootsie roll bank will resurface (I think... I'm just pounding on these keys here) So, Modes, I was reading this Anselm dude; I want to quote one passage from the Proslogion. I think yiou'll agree with me on what I say; I'm just fleshing it out a little more as an ethos if you will. Though the editor of my text did not point out the biblical allusion on this one, I think it is tight with Isaiah 43:10. Anselm first: "I desire to understand in some way Your truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but rather I believe so that I may understand. For this too I believe: that unless I shall have believed, I may not understand." Isaiah 43:10: "'You are my witnesses,' declares the LORD, 'and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me.'" Now is this verse wild or what? When we think, "Ok. My role is as a witness and a servant," what comes to mind? A slavish, sacrificial expenditure perhaps. But this "SO THAT" yields quite a different picture. I'm not negating service; neither is Isaiah. But there is both an ultimate purpose in our roles and an order of importance in discovering them which we often miss. The whole point is to intimately know God (not knowledge as we think of it in the contemporary sense but an intimate relationship--there's that sex undertone-- relationship with the Truth who sets us free), to believe and then (and therefore) to be granted increased understanding. It seems to me that this debate, at least recently but I suspect more routinely, often circles back to notions of suffering and love and whether those are a priori, divinely inspired, or inspired by reflection in man (and in the case of the latter, one debates--not a priori but divine--while another debates--a priori). We cannot begin to understand God's viewpoint on these until we have the knowing-the relational experience of God-and the belief-a heart surrender to taking Him at His Word. Let me try to clarify: I'm not at all trying to say different board participants do or don't have a relationship with God; I'm going beyond that. In fact, I'm pointing my finger at myself and some of my tendencies. Let me single out suffering just a bit and see if I can make myself experientially clearer. Even though I have plenty of experience to back up my right to speak scripture on issues like suffering (I'm only 24, but trust me on that one ), I still feel like the meanie and shrink back when a friend approaches me with his or her understandable a priori, "I just cannot believe God was putting me through/allowing that for His glory. I cannot believe that God's using this to test or shape and mold me is the reason, much less a sufficient reason for His allowing this grief in my life. I cannot hold to a theology that…." In other words, "This is the only way I can conceive of God being, so this is the way He is." It is much easier to call things like they are in this kind of anonymous, theoretical setting. And many, many times, confrontation is not what is needed as much as a hug and some prayer anyhow. Let the Gospel do its thang…. Moreover, their position is actually commendable and an important one to be in because it is a place of honesty. I've been there quite a few times myself and would sometimes like to settle there if scriptures and my continued "knowing" did not compel me to re-surrender. So I believe the question is, "does human honesty surrender to the larger Truth (to God)"? If not, even while maintaining a stance of human honesty, it becomes false in the larger sense--leading to the self-deception and confusion that is inevitable to some degree or another when we bypass God's design. For the strange thing is that the principle in Isaiah, echoed in Anselm, works. Languished or silenced stretches (dark souls of the night) aside, it works. It does not tell us everything we want to understand much less as soon as we wish to understand it, but it gives us what we need to understand, and it goes the distance--holds up. Moreover, even in the hard truths it is ultimately and fundamentally enjoyable to surrender to this knowing (returning to the sex thing; it's not rape) though we may be tired and moody and all of that. We cannot find a purer understanding without first and foremost surrender to a right and intimate relation to God in whatever area there is confusion or resistance to His authority and the authority of the Word (oops, did some eyebrows go up there? I know we have some different notions of the authority of the Word). This design or process does not sacrifice the mind but puts things in their proper order as God sees it and, thereby, allows the mind to truly live. And God, being God, is right. But many of us do not have the right order. Earlier in this thread there was some discussion over being "wired for truth" and debate over what that meant. I agree with the principle (?) but think several things have to be taken into consideration in using this phrase. And I think this applies to classical theists as much as open-the human condition inhibiting us all, and in this matter, especially scholars who tend to have a proclivity to the mind idolatries (Of this, I speak from experience, although I'm not a scholar. I have used an over-processing reason as one of my survival mechanisms in place to deal with childhood trauma and have seen how it worked very effectively to keep me from some necessary truths. Growing up with all the performance and legalistic expectations did not help this matter; I like many, have been taught to seek the A+ in spiritual matters; keep on sharpening that pencil while God is beckoning from the window, from the recess playground. People have often looked to me for my wisdom; I had no idea it was so distorted and paltry). So what are some aspects of the human condition that we might consider? (1) the fallen and distorted nature of our condition which hinders the freedom with which we reflect and communicate with God (2)our limited nature (3)demonology-whether stray thoughts and suggestions or strongholds on our lives, our families, or even our churches or communities such as the mind idolatry which I have suggested and (4) our cultural conditioning. Let me briefly consider (4) in light of some more Anselm. He circles around the conception of God as being that "which a greater cannot be conceived" and therefore, both "That God is whatever it is better to be than not to be, and, existing through Himself alone, he makes everything else out of nothing" and "He is greater than can be conceived." I think He is pretty spot on about how the spirit and mind conceptualize God and also about Who God is. But imagine how many definitions you can get of God from these wider premises! Let's take Anselm's time when an authoritarian with passions would be less laudatory due to the perception of lessened control and also the scary prospect of unpredictable passions when he or she is controlling you. It may have been difficult for Anselm and his predecessors to have conceived of "whatever it is better to be than not to be" as having passions aside from the sort of stoic compassion he describes. I believe there is some difficulty in how the word "passion" has changed emphases over the centuries in regards to temperament and emotions, but I think it fairly safe to say that many "classical"-leaning evangelicals have not and would not fully agree with his understanding of God on this point. I know my eyebrow went up slightly when I first heard it several years ago. We might, however, speak of a divine wholeness and consistency which is lacking in the broken human reflection. I, for one, do not rob God of the passions of linear time even as I do not negate His foreknowledge (although, clearly this is difficult for many to believe, conceive, understand, etc., or we would be having less of a debate here, and my side of the dialogue would not be accused of narrowness at all but would be acknowledged as a wider picture). Now in our time we actually look for passions in our king (i.e., president), so we may have an easier time with this particular issue but perhaps a harder time with other aspects of God's greatness. As a sidenote, let me add that (3) demonology--religious strongholds in this case that subtly and deceptively redefine the "fear" of the LORD might possibly have had a significant influence on the church of Anselm's time. Let's take today then. What might we conceive of as, "whatever it is better to be than not to be" and what is "greater than can be conceived"? What values are hammered into our head day in and day out? As we already recognized, we want passions and charm now~charisma. We cherish more radical notions of independence, and this may guide our notions of free will among many things. We want a more relativistic God. We want a love that only confronts within certain demarcated zones that are more or less pc or else constitiuted within a "cool" framework. We want less paradox and a more accessible understanding. Oddly enough though, we are simultaneously searching for aesthetic roots in our hunger for a Greatness that does, indeed, supercede the mind and are, therefore, eager to proclaim things "mystery"~once our mind has already been fairly satisfied, maybe our self-concept gratified, and in this--perhaps--the a priori's fed. Are these values where we are looking for Greatness even if we acknowledge that it supercedes our finite conceptualization? I'm not pointing fingers but probing. I think both sides can always use some God-empowered self-evaluation. I'm not immune. Oh, let me visit Mr. Tootsie Roll again and see what the find yields. I'm just probing the image off the top of my head. Now one thing I did not mention before is that children usually accept (and maybe even believe) the adult's reasoning, what the adult tells them, in the long run. This is because they know their position in relation to the adult. Still, if the adult waves the bank slip denoting $500 and says, "This is like 100 tootsie roll piggy banks, enough to fill your game room," the child may or may not jump on this reasoning and accept the slip. The child (a) may have no use for that many pennies (b) may have no room for that many banks~this would just get in the way of his or her space and/or play (c) may refuse to believe that this flimsy see-through slip of paper really will grant all of that or (d)--either contingent on "c" or a matter of time--will fail to understand what this bank slip means. Not that long ago I received a picture in prayer of me sitting crosslegged on a dusty street with a pile of dusty clay and reed-like trinkets at the base of my lap. I was fixated on them like I was trying to find the mysterious value of them, make them more than they were. I had little but thought I might make the little more. But Something compelled me to take my eyes off the trinkets, and as I looked up Jesus' eyes were kind and non-condemning, and without hesitation, He eagerly poured a huge pile of gold on my lap (no doubt, crushing the trinkets). That was when I began to understand more what it means to be "poor in spirit"--the utter abjectness this requires and how sensible it actually is in the divine perspective--and when I started recognizing more of the trinkets (or pennies) in my life. Just a half-pregnant thought. Sorry if this is too much of a digression from the topic thread. Blessings to all, Debcita auf Wiedersehen
Debcita
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:28 AM (GMT -6) | | the playground vs. sharpened pencils
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deb, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic with us before you go.
I really liked your quote from Luther: "O that God should desire that my interpretation and that of all teachers should disappear, and each Christian should come straight to the word of God! You see from this babbling of mine the immeasurable difference between the word of God and all human words…. Go to the Bible itself, dear Christians, and let my expositions and those of all scholars be no more than a tool with which to build aright, so that we can understand, taste and abide in the simple and pure word of God; for God dwells alone in Zion."
I think this quote emphasizes the priority of experiencing--and doing! (i.e. the playground)--faith over explaining it (i.e. the sharpened pencil). Our attempts to explain God should not supercede our encounter of God through his Word and through the work of his Spirit in our lives.
I agree with your a-d qualifications of what it means that we're "wired for truth" and I especially appreciated your reflections on d. I think your qualified affirmation of our ability to discern truth, as well as your reflections on what it means (and doesn't mean) to be childlike, fit nicely with what Mephi has been calling "critical realism."
[Digression: The experiential side of Greg Boyd's faith has not come out much in this discussion, but many of us who are more familiar with his teaching and preaching know how powerful it (meaning the experiential side of his faith) is. The reason I bring this up is because the picture of Jesus you received in prayer reminded me of a book Greg wrote on "cataphatic" prayer--which is a more imaginitive, experiential way of praying (St. Ignatious described it as "praying with all five senses").]
So anyway, thank you for sharing your insights. You challenge us in ways that really count, not just in ways that score a particular point on one side of an argument or the other--or that might consitute an attempt to earn an A+ in spiritual matters, while God beckons to us from the playground. Thank you for that.
Blessings on you and your ministry. GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:29 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: Buy the truth and do not sell it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Room,
I would like to thank Lion-Lamb for adding the illustration and clarification concerning my summary of anthropomorphic communication. I am interested in any other comments if he has time. It encourages me to know that I have understood him correctly. I find his writing very clear and beliefs well articulated.
I would offer this observation concerning several who interact in the many threads at this site. It happens far too frequently that those who respond to a post do not make an effort to understand it from the writer’s perspective, but quickly assume what is meant, given their own belief system. This is a violation of one of the most important principles of communication. Consequently, learning what the proposal is, may not take place. The second problem is that too few ask questions to clarify what the writer meant. Too many are too interested in destroying another person’s view before they even know what that view is. Truth does not stand or fall with any one of us. Truth is not truth because I believe it or articulate it. Neither does truth become falsehood if I disagree with it. This should introduce an appropriate caution here and foster more thoughtful dialogues. It will enhance learning.
Pilgrim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Buy the truth and do not sell it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim,
I will offer brief comments and a few qualifications to the remainder of the eight summary observational points you offered a few days ago. I will do so in at least two installments, some today and the remainder perhaps tomorrow. Because my response is rather remotely separated from your original note, I will include in my note your summary points followed by my comments in blue.
See earlier note.
See earlier note.
Within anthropos land, there are a multitude of languages that are spoken. Thus God must communicate about himself to those of numerous languages through things that are common to all anthropos, not just one language group. My qualification here entails orientation focused upon your words, Thus God must communicate. . . . Your word must may be misunderstood to indicate necessity imposed upon God from outside his own will. To avoid any implication that God is under constraint (necessity) or that God is obligated to act by virtue of things outside his own will, I would express your statement in an inverted manner. Within anthropos land a multitude of anthropos languages are spoken. All of these languages, though distinct from one another, are capable of two-way communication with one another. However, none of these languages has the capability to transcend anthropos conversation. All are anthropos-land bounded. Therefore, due to this anthropos limitation designed by the Creator of anthropos land, if inhabitants of anthropos land are to hear and understand any heavenly speech from the maker of anthropos land, all such speech will have to be expressed in language that anthropos land inhabitants can access and understand. So anthropos land inhabitants must hear divine communication in the form and likeness they received from their creator, namely in anthropomorphic language.
God communicates to all anthropos about himself through creation, which is common to all, in spite of various languages. Thus God created the world to speak of him everywhere we turn. God is reflected in the very things he created. Thus in anthropomorphic communication, we come to know God by way of analogy. For example, the sun is an indicator that God is light. God created the sun with the deliberate purpose of giving anthropos something by which to grasp what God is like. No matter to which language group we belong, all anthropos know they cannot look at the sun intently without going blind. That unapproachable light speaks volumes about God, irrespective of our native tongue. The vastness of space points to the immenseness of the Creator. The erupting volcano hints at his enormous power. God is analogous to that which he has created. Created things are intelligible to anthropos and God uses that understanding to give glimpses of himself. Anthropomorphic communication is filled with analogous relationships between created things that are understandable to anthropos and God who does not reveal himself directly. Even creation demonstrates God reveals himself indirectly rather than face to face. The unapproachable light of the sun is a minuscule indication of what God is like. It is thus inconceivable that a finite anthropos could stand face to face with God and live. Yet anthropomorphic communication has been misunderstood because many anthropos have become enamored with the pictures and turned to worship the created thing rather than the Creator. The very things that were created to act as pointers to God have been viewed as pointing to themselves. Creation is thus deified. I offer no qualifications concerning your fourth point. I simply draw attention to 1 Timothy 6:16 which expresses Scripturally your illustration concerning the sun’s significance as a sign that points beyond itself to the unapproachable light that shrouds God from our sight. It is he alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see; to him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen (1 Timothy 6:16).
Next God communicates to anthropos by his written word. In his word he speaks about himself by using analogies that are common to all anthropos, regardless of their language. He is a rock, a shield, water, bread; the analogies are countless in Scripture. So God communicates with us through reference to commonplace things that have a universal language and says, “I am your protector, your food, your drink, your life, your sure foundation, your satisfaction.” Again, anthropos can become enchanted with the pointers and venerate the bread and wine, for example, and miss the substance of the message. The symbols are thus reified. To reify the symbols is to become idolatrous. I only add this: God established the significance of each earthly symbol. When God created, he established an organic union between each symbol and the things each symbolizes. This is observed best in the way God made us. He established an oraganic or wholly natural connection between us, as earthly images of deity, and himself as the one imaged by the earthly symbol. In other words, God did not create and then afterwards observe or scan his creation to find suitable earthly signifiers or symbols that he could exploit as pointers to himself. His fingerprints are all over his creation. So it is with anything we create. Everything we make, whether it be a piece of furniture or a book, it reflects us. It bears our signature for good or for ill.
Lion-Lamb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Should I be taking this personally ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim, I'm not a fan of oblique reprimands. They cause people to wonder whether or not they should be taking what you're saying personally, and to speculate about who exactly you have in mind. Usually the people who actually deserve the reprimand are the ones who ignore it, and the people who end up taking it personally are the ones who don't need to hear it. If you have a beef with me, I invite you to address me by name, otherwise I will assume you are talking to others who presumably have some way of knowing that your tips for improving communication skills are intended for them. Thanks, GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Should I be taking this personally ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,
This is not oblique. Scolding again, huh? You seem to be perpetually hypersensitive. Otherwise, why did you assume that Pilgrim was taking a personal poke at you? If the shoe fits wear it. If it doesn't fit you, then leave it there for others to put on.
Lion-Lamb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Sayers strikes again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, I just thought I'd throw this one into the mix. The following quote is from Dorothy Sayers' book, The Mind of the Maker. I'd love to hear your feedback on this:
All language about God must, as St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, necessarily be analogical. We need not be surprised at this, still less suppose that because it is analogical it is therefore valueless or without any relation to the truth. The fact is, that all language about everything is analogical; we think in a series of metaphors. We can explain nothing in terms of itself, but only in terms of other things....It may be perilous, as as it must be inadequate, to interpret God by analogy with ourselves, but we are compelled to do so; we have no other means of interpreting anything. Skeptics frequently complain that man has made God in his own image…To complain that man measures God by his own experience is a waste of time; man measures everything by his own experience; he has no other yardstick.
GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:30 AM (GMT -6) | | One more for the road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another interesting quote from David Tracy's Blessed Rage for Order. Let me know what ya'll think of this:
"[O]ne may analyze which metaphysical concepts can articulate the cognitive meaning of that metaphor in a manner which affirms rather than effectively negates the originating metaphor itself..." Rather than rendering "conceptually explicit the tensive meanings of the metaphor itself," most classical theists "did (and, by the logic of that metaphysical position, must) deny that God is really affected by human actions (ratio entis); even if it be anthropomorphically, metaphorically, symbolically, or logically helpful to express those meanings, in that earlier, scriptural fashion (ratio rationis).
"My own suspicion is that all authentic Christians live and pray and speak as if God were really affected by their action...Yet the question recurs: Christians may live and say this, but can they mean it. Can they render it conceptually coherent if they continue to employ the concepts of classical theology? Can Christians mean the most fundamental religious affirmation of Christian self-understanding if they simultaneously affirm the usual understanding of classical Christianity that God is...the one who is not really (relatio entis) but only notionally (relatio rationis) affected by human actions?"
GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:31 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: Should I be taking this personally ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LL, I'm not "scolding," I'm being honest. I'm not "hypersensitive," I'm seeking clarity. I didn't "assume" Pilgrim was "taking a personal poke at me," I simply asked whether or not his "observation concerning several who interact in the many threads at this site" included me, because I couldn't tell from the reference (which is why I consider it "oblique"--a "direct" reference might include hints like calling someone by name). Hope that clears things up for you. Peace, GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
| 83 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:42 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 |
|
|