 |
| 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 1:31 AM (GMT -6) |   | RE: RE: RE: Buy the truth and do not sell it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lion-Lamb,
Thank you for the additional comments and catching the potential misunderstanding arising out of my use of the word must. I agree, God is not compelled to reveal himself to us. I was not thinking about this in my summary, but started with the next step, that is, if God were to communicate to us, he would speak in a way we can understand. I am glad you pointed this out. Your explanation is so much better than mine. My attempt to summarize your views has lead to my improved understanding and hopefully that of others.
Pilgrim
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:31 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: One more for the road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,
Well, it's evident that I will have to get hold of David Tracy's Blessed Rage for Order and read it. He is clearly saying many things that Mephi and I have been saying throughout these discussions. Until I get to read the book, here are two thoughts concerning what you have quoted from the book.
First, take note of the following quote from Tracy. My own suspicion is that all authentic Christians live and pray and speak as if God were really affected by their action... Note the bolded words. Isn't that the very essence of anthropomorphism?
Second, I've read enough of David Tracy to realize that he views the Bible very differently from the way an Evangelical, such as I, views the Bible. I view the Bible fundamentally as God's self-revelation in human language via his human agents. Tracy views the Bible fundamentally as a compilation of human expressions concerning their conceptions of God. In other words, David Tracy is a Liberal; he is not an Evangelical. His whole understanding of Scripture is significantly different. Despite the radical difference that stands between him and me, I find his thoughts useful, for though his view of the Bible is quite different from mine, he still reads it and makes some valid observations concerning it.
Lion-Lamb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:32 AM (GMT -6) | |
Lion-Lamb
02/01/01 9:36 AM
RE: RE: RE: Should I be taking this personally ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,
As I said, if the shoe fits, wear it. In other words, there is no need for Pilgrim or anyone else to identify offenders by name, especially when they are many. If Pilgrim had listed offenders of the matter he addressed, then you would have a legitimate complaint against his cautionary word. For personally identified offenders should be addressed personally, even if publicly. However, as Pilgrim expressed his caution and reminder, you don't need to know whom he intended should take it to heart. Try on the shoe. If it fits, quietly wear it and make necessary adjustments as called for in the cautionary appeal.
Here's an observation from my all-too-brief years of living. Those who complain about an admonition, generalized precisely because so many need to take it to heart, are those for whom the admonition is given. Better to put the shoe on quietly and wear it than to squeal as if the shoe brings pain.
Wisdom from,
Lion-Lamb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:33 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: One more for the road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So LL, you live and pray as if God were really affected by our actions, in spite of the fact that you believe the opposite is true... and you're ok with that? And from what you've said in the past, it seems like you believe that people who live and pray as if God were really affected by their actions because they believe God IS really affected by their actions, are really sinning against God? Just seeing if I understand you correctly.
Yes, I think you would like Tracy. Some things I've been reading from Rudolf Bultmann have reminded me of your view as well. For example, Bultmann understood religious language in the Scriptures (which he refers to as "myth") to be re-presentations of the "transcendent" in terms of the "immanent." His notion of a genuinely improper understanding of biblical portrayals of God included the "literalization (i.e., through re-presentations determined by 'immanent,' external sense-perception categories) of 'serious' but not 'literal' meanings (...which cannot be adequately re-presented in the linguistic categories of the immanent)."
Even though things you say remind me of people who are considered "liberals" (i.e. Tillich, Tracy, Bultmann, etc.) I know that you are in fact a conservative evangelical and I would never suggest otherwise. So I'm not trying to insinuate any kind of "slippery slope" or "guilt by association" argument. I just find the parallels I discover between what I'm reading and what you're saying in this discussion to be quite fascinating. That's all. GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:33 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: One more for the road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So LL, you live and pray as if God were really affected by our actions, in spite of the fact that you believe the opposite is true... and you're ok with that? And from what you've said in the past, it seems like you believe that people who live and pray as if God were really affected by their actions because they believe God IS really affected by their actions, are really sinning against God? Just seeing if I understand you correctly.
Yes, I think you would like Tracy. Some things I've been reading from Rudolf Bultmann have reminded me of your view as well. For example, Bultmann understood religious language in the Scriptures (which he refers to as "myth") to be re-presentations of the "transcendent" in terms of the "immanent." His notion of a genuinely improper understanding of biblical portrayals of God included the "literalization (i.e., through re-presentations determined by 'immanent,' external sense-perception categories) of 'serious' but not 'literal' meanings (...which cannot be adequately re-presented in the linguistic categories of the immanent)."
Even though things you say remind me of people who are considered "liberals" (i.e. Tillich, Tracy, Bultmann, etc.) I know that you are in fact a conservative evangelical and I would never suggest otherwise. So I'm not trying to insinuate any kind of "slippery slope" or "guilt by association" argument. I just find the parallels I discover between what I'm reading and what you're saying in this discussion to be quite fascinating. That's all. GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:34 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: Should I be taking this personally ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-D-G,
My comments were not intended to be an “oblique reprimand.” In fact, they were an up front, general exhortation, which all of us need rather frequently in life.
The old vernacular saw reminds us, “what goes around, comes around.” It is a variation of the Golden Rule. How we treat others will be the way others treat us. If we assume improperly what the other person is saying, that will come around to bite us.
Now to be direct because you made it so, your post is a good example of what I said in my second paragraph in my post. You did ask a question, “Should I be taking this personally?”, but didn’t take my second to the last sentence to heart. Exhortations are meant for thoughtful reflection. We all need them like road signs which warn of danger ahead. I am a fan of those up front, general road signs which speak to all who drive by. The message is worth reading, for it may save my life. And if I drive headlong into trouble, I perhaps will remember the general exhortation of the sign a ways back and remember to heed it next time.
Learning along with you. Shalom,
Pilgrim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:34 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: RE: Should I be taking this personally ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim, thanks for the clarification. I thought you had some specific people in mind when you shared your "observation concerning several who interact in the many threads at this site," but now I see that you intended your observation to be a general exhortation for everyone, as the second sentence from the end suggests. Thanks, GDG
| | Back to Top | | |
|
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 1:34 AM (GMT -6) | | RE: Waiting for your slam dunk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shine,
In response (at Shine150, 1/29/01, 11:09 pm) to my summary regarding anthropomorphic language, you stated (at least for the sake of discussion) that both expressions–God regrets and God loves–should be understood to fall within anthropomorphic language. Toward the end of your post you seem to be willing to accept both of these as falling within the same theology of language, but the point you want to remember is that God’s love transcends human love and God’s change of mind transcends our change of mind. You also state that exegesis is what “distinguishes open and non-open folk.”
1. Given your view, would you please enlighten me how God’s change of mind transcends the change of mind experienced by humans?
2. How do humans imperfectly experience surprise and change of mind?
3. Since you conclude exegesis is the determining factor, would you kindly show me from Scripture how you draw your conclusions?
4. Finally, using the theology of language and exegesis, would you please demonstrate how the “non-open folk” in this chat room “draw inconsistent conclusions from your [their] (perhaps even correct) understanding of the anthropomorphic nature of all language.”
I would like to see your slam dunk on this one, for you have left us hanging in mid-air with you, greatly anticipating it.
Pilgrim
| | Back to Top | | |
| 83 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:55 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 |
|
|