 |
| 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/30/2003 6:54 AM (GMT -6) |   | MephEternal
Just a note. It is ALL THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR from God that I try to take into account with my personal theologizing. How is the God that would kill a man over a foreskin, zap a man for GOOD INTENTIONED breaking of a ritual code, take out Ananias and Sapphira for LYING, and all that...the God we see in Jesus?
Iconoclast
Why not the simple answer - it is NOT God specifically doing it. Why interpret all these things so literally. Why not assume that the Creator of the universe is actually trying to communicate deep metaphysical truth with these stories in a framework that could be understood by the humans at that time.
Those folks back then didn't know about entropy or epistemic distance, although they sure seemed to know that if God tried to talk directly to them they would die, or quantum physics or psychology or the unconscious or prescribing the symptom or any of that stuff.
Why not presume that God actually acts just like Jesus acted (since we KNOW that Jesus IS ACTUALLY God) and then seek to reframe our understanding of the Old Testament through that lens. Now, if we discover or have to postulate metaphysical principles that start according with other convergent evidence we have wouldn't that suggest that we are on the right path?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/30/2003 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
And now...a station break from the God of glory...
Is. 42:5-9
Thus says God, the LORD,
who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people upon it
and spirit to those who walk in it:
I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness,
I have taken you by the hand and kept you;
I have given you as a covenant to the people,
a light to the nations,
to open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness.
I am the LORD, that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to idols.
See, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth,
I tell you of them.
God, the glory hound. Heh…
If we could postulate a clear PURPOSE for God saying all this that is consistent with Him acting just like Jesus acted and consistent with what we know about Him loving us so much that He died on a cross for us wouldn't that be a more satisfactory and uplifting answer than thinking of God like Elvis or something - always seeking His own glory?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/30/2003 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
Why not presume that God actually acts just like Jesus acted (since we KNOW that Jesus IS ACTUALLY God) and then seek to reframe our understanding of the Old Testament through that lens.
I’m trying to do that.
Modes and I did this a LONG time ago. There are certain things that Jesus does that are SIGNIFICANT that people who want to moralize Jesus don’t look at. I think it is VERY significant that Jesus PRONOUNCES A CURSE upon a living thing…and that living thing dies by that curse. That is JUST what the OT God has done. You do recall the Bathsheba’s baby by David, right? This is a line of continuity there! Just like the lovingkindness that Jesus shows wth the “Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem” thing is in continuity with YHWH’s love for the Children of Israel.
Dude, you have the INCARNATE WORD pronouncing a DEATH DEALING curse on a living thing. That means nothing?
Moreover, why in the world interpret Jesus’s cursing of the tree as metaphorical, AND interpret the exorcisms as metaphorical…but THEN turn around and interpret the healings as LITERAL??? Why not interpret all those things as metaphorical?
This seems quite questionably selective, don’t you think?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 8/30/2003 7:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi said:
Moreover, why in the world interpret Jesus’s cursing of the tree as metaphorical, AND interpret the exorcisms as metaphorical…but THEN turn around and interpret the healings as LITERAL???
This seems quite questionably selective, don’t you think?
Semeia:
Mephi, how are you not interpreting the cursing of the tree as metaphorical? You are saying it is like God's "cursing" Ananias and Sapphira. That is a METAPHOR. If Jesus LITERALLY struck someone dead, then you would have a LITERAL example. But he didn't.
It is true that we are interpreting that event metaphorically (consistently with our view) - but we are mapping it to a different meaning. We do NOT argue that it didn't happen - only that its broader meaning is different from your interpretation of its broader meaning.
We interpret the "withering of the plant" as ACTUALLY having happened. We only disagree about its broader implication - which is just as metaphorical from your point of view as with ours.
From our point of view Jesus NEVER does what he does to the plant with PEOPLE.
Jesus himself interprets the event for the disciples. He tells them that they themselves have this same power, if they but have faith. Jesus is demonstrating the power that our words have. He is in no way suggesting that we should apply "cursing power" to other human beings. In fact, his very life and death testify to the opposite of that.
And the "healings" are literal because of the multiple eyewitness accounts that suggest historical truth (just like the withering of the tree). No one is suggesting an additional metaphorical meaning for them at the moment, but I'm sure we could find some.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/30/2003 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/31/2003 7:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Semiea: Are you saying that Jesus cursing a LIVING THING and it dying has NO significance? Morever, are you equating Jesus CURSING a tree and it DYING because of that curse…to him killing and eating a fish?
Meph: I’m telling! DOC!!!!!
Doc: Semeia the demonic fish hater: You’ve been BUSTED.
Meph: (To Semeia and Icon) You CANNOT just take one aspect of God’s glory…and leave all the rest because you don’t like it.
‘
Doc: On the other hand, YOU cannot make Christ’s revelation merely "one aspect" of God’s glory. The FULLNESS of the Godhead was in Christ. If you SEE ME you see the Father. He is THE (one and only) Word of God, Image of God, Perfect Expression of God (Col. 2:9; Jn 14: 7-10; Jn. 1:1; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3).
Meph: Just a note. It is ALL THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR from God that I try to take into account with my personal theologizing. How is the God that would kill a man over a foreskin, zap a man for GOOD INTENTIONED breaking of a ritual code, take out Ananias and Sapphira for LYING, and all that...the God we see in Jesus?
Doc: It’s a great question. How is THIS God LIKE Jesus? But the question presumes that God IS like Jesus. Now, while I’m less enthusiastic about the metaphorical reinterpretation than Icon, I think is approach is a good one. He askes, "Why not presume that God actually acts just like Jesus acted (since we KNOW that Jesus IS ACTUALLY God) and then seek to reframe our understanding of the Old Testament through that lens? . Now, if we discover or have to postulate metaphysical principles that start according with other convergent evidence we have wouldn't that suggest that we are on the right path?" I’m not sure, but I’m hoping this can be done without going the metaphor route.
Meph: Dude, you have the INCARNATE WORD pronouncing a DEATH DEALING curse on a living thing. That means nothing?
Doc: Did you not read my God at War?  In the rabbinic context, Jesus can be understood as "cursing the curse." And in the process, he’s showing the deadness of Israeli leadership. In any event, its true he DID kill a fig tree. But its also true he ate fish… and Semeia’s still wondering why the former bothers you more than the later.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/31/2003 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | [Okay, we’ve gotten off track. May I summarize here and make an observation? Too bad. I’m going to anyway.
Meph’s MAIN point, I think, is that the Bible leads us to the conclusion that
a) God sometimes does stuff that looks unloving (out of character as defined by Jesus) so,
b) we just have to boot-lik’n trust him in these instances.
NOW, I bet Semeia, Icon, TGB and I would have little problem with asserting THIS much. But when it comes to entertaining the possibility of God in any sense orchestating Zosia getting her eyes plucked out or sending people to hell, we draw the line (to say the least). The consistency-addicted Meph then presses for the PRINCPLE that renders rational our drawing the line when we do. We cite Jesus as the definitive revelation of God – with which Meph agrees – but then he comes back and shows us that God sometimes does stuff that looks like its NOT consistent with Jesus.
Fair summation?
Here’s the thing. Take this out of the realm of metaphysics and into the realm of LIFE – and I bet we’re all in agreement, or at least close. Its sort of like Alexander’s observation that 50 architects will disagree over 50 different theories of what is beautiful, but when you get them and others to just LOOK at LIFE, there’s 85% or better agreement as to what is beautiful. So, perhaps instead of trying to find that elusive line of what THEORETICALLY we think God would or could do, we should as what WE would do in various situations as we LOOK at Jesus?
I’m willing to bet (and I’m certainly HOPING) that Meph would never actually RESPOND to a little girl having her eyes plucked out by suggesting that God was behind it. I know the guy. He would scream "EVIL," would say "this is of the devil," and he would do everything in his power to stop it, or at least work to bring healing to it and out of it. The whole thing about "sacrificed rook to save the queen" deal, as applied to extreme situations like this, is purely a matter of logical consistency. But it is a consideration, I submit, that has no role in ACTUAL LIFE.
Life is like this, in a lot of ways, I think. I can’t – and I’m not sure anyone CAN – tell you exactly what constitutes beauty in this or that situation (though we can appeal to PRINCIPLES). But, unless we’ve been screwed over by a theory or jaded by evil, we all know beauty when we see it. And, with the same exceptions, we all know Jesus – and the Devil – when we see him.
Don’t we? 
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/31/2003 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/31/2003 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | I find myself leaning in Mephi’s direction regarding the fig tree but I don’t think it compromises the belief that Jesus is the consummate revelation of God.
Yes, Jesus reveals what God is truly like. But perhaps Jesus isn’t finished revealing God. Jesus will certainly engage in some awesome fireworks when he returns and my guess is it won’t be such a calm ride into town for the wicked. Remember all, there IS an apocalypse, however you interpret it. It’s only when interpreted eschatologically that Jesus the “revealer” of God embraces all there is of God. Yes we see what God is really like in Jesus. But we also WILL see what God is like when Jesus returns in the eschaton on a DIFFERENT mission.
My feeling is that the cursing of the fig tree fits into this eschatology, God’s moving from one to another, from Israel to a people of God without borders. It’s not unusual for some fireworks to mark this movement.
And there appears to me to be no good reason for believing God, who is a judge and who will judge the world through Jesus Christ, cannot pick up the scepter whenever in judgment now. The guy touches the Ark and gets zapped. He was a Levite. He knew better. God installed the ritual and it was important then in a way we can’t possibly understand now I don’t think. If we have to admit that we don’t understand what factors must converge in bringing such judgment to pass, big deal. I guess my point is, if God revealed in Christ is the same God and same Christ who will kick butt in the apocalypse, then there’s no reason to try to “interpret” the Old Testament judgments in such a way as to exempt God revealed in Christ on the Cross from judging folks in such a manner. The Cross doesn’t mean God won’t or doesn’t judge people. It just means that they were not unconditionally created for such judgment and that such judgment when it comes is always God’s last resort in light of all the factors. The Cross doesn’t mean God is such that God does not judge, it means rather than God is such that God does not unconditionally predetermine people for judgment. As for a tree, God can do with it want it wants. If killing it makes a point important to achieving some good purpose with PEOPLE, then I vote that people are worth it.
So I have absolutely no problem at all with Jesus cursing a living tree and killing it to make a point. It’s a tree folks. Say it…T-R-E-E. I think both sides are making too much of the tree and the fish. Come on guys.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/31/2003 8:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Thank you, Tom.
Reflect on this, ya friggin Jesus-hippies!
JESUS speaking both cases...
Matt. 25:31
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Matt. 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’
The nice loving tree-huggin' Jesus. Pheh. 
Jesus is JUDGE too. "Consistency-addicted", eh? 
I wanna make a movie. "When Attempts at Christocentric Biblical Interpretation Go Terribly Awry!" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/31/2003 8:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's my OWN thoughts, in my OWN words:
Its literature. Each Gospel is written to a different audience, by a different author (Luke may be by Mark) during a different situation, for a different reason. Even in this bit with the tree the variences in the way the story are told say as much about the point being made, and needing to be made, as what actually happened and the details that transpired.
This is not "News at Nine." (But, then, in Chicago our news isn't factual either.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 8/31/2003 8:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Rev 20:11 ¶ Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.
12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is {the book} of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one {of them} according to their deeds.
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
It doesn't say they threw themselves into the lake of fire, and I seriously doubt anyone but God or his angels will be authorized to toss the impenitent into the lake of fire.
2 Thess 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;
Sounds like we have an example of JESUS slaying someone.
Matt 3:7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Rom 1:18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
Col 3:5 ¶ Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. 6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,
Rev 14:9 ¶ Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,
10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
This is the wrath of the God the Father and, yes, the wrath of JESUS. But I should hasten to add that nowhere do we find anyone receiving the wrath of God who did not in fact EARN it. It also seems to me that if we are going to make all the above references to the wrath of God/Jesus somehow symbolic, we must explain what this would be a metaphor OF.
As to the fig tree incident, the whole thing was an illustration/sign to the disciples that Israel (represented by the fig tree) was barren spiritually (their Messiah came to his own and his own received him not), and that therefore the would not only be barren, but would in fact incur the curse of God so long as they continued in their unbelief/rejection of Jesus as Messiah.
I honestly can't see how the fig tree incident comes even close to comparing to a little girl's eyeballs being cut out, or even a person being murdered. It was only a tree, not a sentient being.
As to Ananias and Sapphira, it seems to me that if in fact God struck them dead (and they did not just die of a heart attack at the rebuke of Peter), this was a very special case in which God was making an example so that others might fear. It wasn't like Ananias and Sapphira didn't know God would know what they really had done, nor was it as if they couldn't avoid lying to both God and the apostles. Thankfully God doesn't apparently generally operate in this way.
"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 | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 9/1/2003 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | DOC said: I’m willing to bet (and I’m certainly HOPING) that Meph would never actually RESPOND to a little girl having her eyes plucked out by suggesting that God was behind it. I know the guy. He would scream "EVIL," would say "this is of the devil," and he would do everything in his power to stop it, or at least work to bring healing to it and out of it. The whole thing about "sacrificed rook to save the queen" deal, as applied to extreme situations like this, is purely a matter of logical consistency. But it is a consideration, I submit, that has no role in ACTUAL LIFE.
As I've read, and by the way have absolutely LOVED reading, this thread, inside I've been regularly and consistently shouting:
 WHAT ABOUT THE TIME ELEMENT???
I know that OV'ers don't like talking about God operating "out of time", or maybe more acceptably, from the OV belief, "out of human time", but, Meph, it seems to me that your point-a true point, I believe-about God working compatibilistically with human free will, can only make sense IF God can see beyond the current circumstances.
Obviously, a huge amount of actions are against God's will. In order for a just God to "allow" these actions to happen, He must know the future events that will transpire because of this evil. Otherwise He would be unconscionable. It seems to me that compatibilism must include omniscience of future events.
Waiting impatiently for responses,
SIM
PS: I just found this explanation of God's relationships with "time" that to me has a ring of truth:
Here's my own two-bits.
1. God does not have "sequence" according to his essence (He does not "change." Creation was not for God the same as what the forming of Eve was to Adam--a "ribbing." )
2. From our point of view, considering God's character (Love) it also seems good to say that God's "mercy faileth not." I don't think that there is "sequence" in a matter where God's love increases or decreases.
3. BUT, some kind of statement seems necessary with respect to God's will. Willing is free. But what seems to matter EVEN MORE is that we recognize that his will is not his essence. Nothing causes God to will. His will is the reason for his character (not the other way around). God freely wills.
4. The paradoxical thing is that: God's will (Love) <a> does not change, <b> is not determined by something else. (As would be the case with a "habit of character." Instead, "God means it" every time--time being from 'our' point of view.) <c> So, God's eternal will acts within creation.
5. Despite the vast differences between God and creation, God closes the gap. What creation does not resemble God in by nature, it is made to by grace.
(Quoted from PoW from another thread)
"A child of God is not aware of the will of God because he is the will of God." Oswald Chambers
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/1/2003 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM: I know that OV'ers don't like talking about God operating "out of time", or maybe more acceptably, from the OV belief, "out of human time", but, Meph, it seems to me that your point-a true point, I believe-about God working compatibilistically with human free will, can only make sense IF God can see beyond the current circumstances.
Tom: I don’t mind talking about God operating “out of time” or “out of human time” if it can first be explained to me what that means so that we can talk about “it.”
It seems to me too, SIM, that God’s bringing about something compatibilistically would be the one situation which would not require God to know the future as entirely settled, for presumably when God works compatibilistically God always gets what God wants. There’s no need to know that things will turn out as you desire by seeing the future timelessly if you can guarantee that the future will be what you desire by working compatibilistically.
SIM: Obviously, a huge amount of actions are against God's will. In order for a just God to "allow" these actions to happen, He must know the future events that will transpire because of this evil. Otherwise He would be unconscionable. It seems to me that compatibilism must include omniscience of future events.
Tom: But timeless knowledge can never be the basis upon which God allows an event to occur, for the simple reason that what is timelessly known is already the result of whatever divine influence or allowance contributed to bringing it about. Such knowledge cannot also be the BASIS upon which such influence and allowance are made. Timeless knowledge is providentially useless. God couldn’t do anything with it even if he possessed it.
What do you think?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 9/1/2003 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | [quote]Originally posted by TGB
SIM: I know that OV'ers don't like talking about God operating "out of time", or maybe more acceptably, from the OV belief, "out of human time", but, Meph, it seems to me that your point-a true point, I believe-about God working compatibilistically with human free will, can only make sense IF God can see beyond the current circumstances.
Tom: I don’t mind talking about God operating “out of time” or “out of human time” if it can first be explained to me what that means so that we can talk about “it.”
SIM: Let's just think about "it" as God's capabilities. I see God's capabilities concerning time as His capacity to operate at any point in time from BEYOND time, create time, and destroy time. I.e., He is LORD OVER TIME. We have got to get out of the mode of thinking that God's mind is like ours in the point that He is limited to linear thinking. I think it is very easy, at least for me, to forget that God is AT ONCE MORE THAN HIS CREATION AND NOT LESS THAN HIS CREATION.
I also don't base my beliefs on my ability to comprehend the aforesaid information.
My son, who has done post-graduate work in n-dimension mathematics (this is a study of problems which involve the representation of infinite dimensions, of which space and time are only dimsensions 3 and 4), says that even the things in nature that mankind has been able to represent mathematically are incomprehensible to the human brain. Now, doesn't that give us reason to suspect that God's mind is even less comprehensible to the human mind?
SIM
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/1/2003 5:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc
It’s a great question. How is THIS God LIKE Jesus? But the question presumes that God IS like Jesus. Now, while I’m less enthusiastic about the metaphorical reinterpretation than Icon, I think is approach is a good one. He askes, "Why not presume that God actually acts just like Jesus acted (since we KNOW that Jesus IS ACTUALLY God) and then seek to reframe our understanding of the Old Testament through that lens? . Now, if we discover or have to postulate metaphysical principles that start according with other convergent evidence we have wouldn't that suggest that we are on the right path?" I’m not sure, but I’m hoping this can be done without going the metaphor route.
Iconoclast
I don't think I invoked any sort of a metaphor route here. I just invoked two basic principles:
1. When a human is involved and supernatural power is wielded it does NOT necessarily mean that God is causing it. We know that Moses used God's power against God's will and was not allowed into the promised land for it - but it is clear that the power WORKED. We also know that Peter walked on water but clearly out of his own supernatural faith power since when his faith weakened he started sinking. Thus, I think it is fair to conclude that the Ananias and Sapphira incident and the Elijah/bears/teens incident was NOT necessarily God but could just as well have been Peter and Elijah. And since we don't see Jesus behaving this way it is very plausible to say that it WAS Peter and Elijah.
2. When the bible says that "The LORD" did this or did that or has God saying it Himself it is NOT necessarily clear whether it was God doing something in PARTICULAR (causing some INSTANCE) or whether it was God causing something because that is how the world works (something being caused because of the category that God caused). When Job says, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away", we can understand this at the category level - God built this creation which gives particular things to us and takes away particular things from us - and NOT the instance level - God specifically killed Job's children just to see how he would react. Thus, "the Lord" striking down the poor soul who touched the ark could just as well mean that the system God set up had the natural and logical consequence (metaphysical principle) that anyone who touched the ark died on the spot. It does NOT necessarily mean that God was suddenly interrupted by an angelic messenger who told Him about the transgression and that God quickly sent a thunderbolt in the that poor man's direction.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/1/2003 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
Matt. 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’
Iconoclast
I view this as "legal view" language. Jesus is communicating with us legal viewers in our language. It is no different than trying to communicate to your 5 year old to not play on the freeway. The 5 year old has no concept of what it means to be run over by a car so we tell him that he will be in "big trouble" and get a "big spanking" if he runs out into the street.
If we are not AT CHOICE in loving each other then coming before the father (zero epistemic distance) results in a really bad experience for us. Why, one touch of the "ark of the testimony" (lower epistemic distance) can physically kill you on the spot.
If we are not AT CHOICE when coming before the father we can even understand it as "being thrown into a lake of fire." Why "being thrown"? Because if we are not AT CHOICE then we just HAVE the negative experience of God's love. To us, it feels like it is something outside of us - like it is being done to us - but this is just a metaphysical principle at work operating here like gravity. It really is OUR CHOICE that got us here - the metaphysical principle is operating according to our choice.
Love must be chosen - it requires being AT CHOICE.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/1/2003 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi SIM! Thanks for the response.
Tom: I don’t mind talking about God operating “out of time” or “out of human time” if it can first be explained to me what that means so that we can talk about “it.”
SIM: Let's just think about "it" as God's capabilities. I see God's capabilities concerning time as His capacity to operate at any point in time from BEYOND time, create time, and destroy time. I.e., He is LORD OVER TIME.
Tom: I think God is “lord over time” too but I don’t think this means having to believe he is timeless in the sense you argue.
But more importantly for now, you’ve suggested that God’s being timeless means God can operate at any point in time. How about the past? Can God “operate” in the past? Can he change the past? Can he rewrite history? What can God do by way of “operation” in the past? Let’s just deal with this first. If he can’t bring it about that the past is not what it is, or change it, then he cannot “operate” at ANY point in time. And if he can’t operate in the past, then the need for insisting that God is timeless in the sense you’re arguing for in order to maintain his lordship over time and his ability to operate from beyond time is compromised.
So the question is, can God “operate” in the past?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 9/2/2003 5:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom asked: "Can God operate in the past?"
But, Tom, don't you see that your question is wrong? "Can God operate in the past" does not even make sense because with the way you framed the question, you are putting-"trapping" God in linear time. God doesn't have a "past" as far as His Being. Of course He can operate in the past from our viewpoint, but our past is not His. When He operates in "our past", it is beyond the "timeline" that we are experiencing. Therefore, when God operates in our past, we experience it AS OUR PAST.
I know that what you are saying is actually, "Can God do nonsense?" Well, He did that miracle in Joshua 10:13:
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
So, WHEN God wants to mess with natural laws, He can!
One day, I started thinking about the possibility of being able to "change the past" by praying. I started thinking, "how can I change the past and continue on as the person I am at this very moment?" Then it occurred to me that IF I pray that something would change in the past, God would have already done it IN MY PAST! Pretty scary that something that has happened depends upon a future prayer! (Makes me want to get down on my knees right now and pray!) But is that "nonsense" from God's perspective? I don't think so. It only becomes that way when we limit God in our timeline.
I really like something about what PoW said about God's relationship with Time:
4. The paradoxical thing is that: God's will (Love) <a> does not change, <b> is not determined by something else. (As would be the case with a "habit of character." Instead, "God means it" every time--time being from 'our' point of view.) <c> So, God's eternal will acts within creation.
5. Despite the vast differences between God and creation, God closes the gap. What creation does not resemble God in by nature, it is made to by grace.
(Quoted from PoW from another thread)
To me, this "closing of the gap" describes God relating to us in OUR time, not His.
He condescends to be involved in a limited creation but He is always more than this creation.
I heard someone recently talk about the importance of living in God-space. To me that describes that place where you acknowledge that God has the knowledge and power that you don't have, to live life in His highest will. We always have that choice.
This is my thinking on this subject, (at least for now.)
SIM
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/2/2003 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM: Tom asked: "Can God operate in the past?" But, Tom, don't you see that your question is wrong? "Can God operate in the past" does not even make sense because with the way you framed the question, you are putting-"trapping" God in linear time.
Tom: Then I need you to speak more carefully, because you described God’s timelessness, God’s being lord over time, as “His capacity to operate at any point in time from BEYOND time.” Now, the only “points in time” are our points in time. And our past is one of those. So as far as I can tell you are claiming that God is able to operate in our past from beyond time. I’m asking you to give me an example of what God’s operating in the point in time called the past would be.
SIM: Of course He can operate in the past from our viewpoint, but our past is not His. When He operates in "our past", it is beyond the "timeline" that we are experiencing. Therefore, when God operates in our past, we experience it AS OUR PAST.
Tom: Fine. So, God can change OUR past? God can, say, bring it about (from beyond time) that John Kennedy was not assassinated, or that the South won the Civil War? What sort of “operation” in the past (from beyond time of course) are you suggesting God has the capacity to bring about?
SIM:I know that what you are saying is actually, "Can God do nonsense?"
Tom: Not at all. I’m just trying to understand what you mean when you attribute to God the “capacity to operate in any point in time from beyond time.” So my question is not all wrong. It’s a good question. Does this capacity of which you speak amount to God’s ability to bring it about (from beyond time) that our past is changed? For example, can God bring it about timelessly that I did not have coffee this morning for breakfast (which I did)? What does this “capacity to operate in any point in time from beyond time” amount to?
SIM: I started thinking, "how can I change the past and continue on as the person I am at this very moment?" Then it occurred to me that IF I pray that something would change in the past, God would have already done it IN MY PAST!
Tom: I respect your view, but honestly, SIM, I have not the faintest idea of what these words mean. I am totally and completely in the dark. But I am encouraged however. If you can believe this, there is perhaps hope that people will stop objecting to open theism on the basis that it doesn’t make sense.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 9/3/2003 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Then I need you to speak more carefully, because you described God’s timelessness, God’s being lord over time, as “His capacity to operate at any point in time from BEYOND time.” Now, the only “points in time” are our points in time. And our past is one of those. So as far as I can tell you are claiming that God is able to operate in our past from beyond time. I’m asking you to give me an example of what God’s operating in the point in time called the past would be.
I wish I had more time right now to write a response, but I have got to run to a wedding music rehearsal.
But I will briefly make some comments. I think I struggle with God's relationship to my prayers than almost any other thing.
I can't do the amount of thinking and researching I would like to do on this subject to give it justice, and to consider the very good points you have made. But, I keep thinking that one thing I do know is my own experience. My experience having to do with answered prayer has been documented in a journal that I have kept since the mid-90's. I have tried to document answered prayer in this journal, as I've experienced in my own life, though I know I didn't see a huge amount of the answered prayers, and did not give God the credit for the circumstances in my life. However, I did notice time after time some answers to my prayers that came about in the day-to-day working out in my life. I have seen how many things had to be orchestrated in my past in order for God to have answered them as He did. Unfortunately, the ones that I'm remembering at this moment have to do with things that are very personal.
I will go back to my journals later on and come up with some answers that I saw as orchestrated from "my past", which to me would be an example of God working "backwards".
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/3/2003 7:38 PM (GMT -6) | | SIM-
I appreciate your son’s comments. What I hear is this:
God can change the past in the sense of bringing it about that JFK was never assassinated, but when God does this we are completely unaware of it. The revised past becomes our past and we never experience the disruption in time.
In such a case, our memories, personal histories, text-books, recordings, all sources of information, people once dead now resurrected and given personal histories, people never born now brought into existence at full-age with histories, all this and more is effected by God without our knowing it or sensing it.
My objection to the idea was not based on the problems involved in our experiencing a disruption in time. It regarded God’s ability to so act, period.
We’ve strayed a bit from Rom 9, so I’ll just respond by suggesting that you get William Lane Craig’s book Time and Eternity or IVP’s Four Views book on time.
It’s a little frustrating when someone believes something and admits that there’s no logical explanation of it or possible evidence against it. The position becomes impenetrable and discussion ends.
Is there anything (evidence, experience, anything at all) that you believe would constitute the disproving of such a view of divine timelessness? What would it take for you to conclude that this is an untenable view?
Anybody else have a thought on this?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/4/2003 2:26 AM (GMT -6) | | SIM-
Maybe this should be a new thread, but let’s just leave it here.
A few more thoughts:
1) Timeless knowledge is, presumably, used to explain how it is that God is able to act providentially in the world and guarantee that his purposes are achieved. Such knowledge is believed to be a) the basis upon which God is able to determine what his own actions are to be in bringing about his will, and b) the basis upon which some evils are judged by God to be permissible. This, of course, is the standard Arminian use of timeless knowledge.
2) Determinists and Arminians, however, advocate timelessness for different reasons. The Arminian believes that all history (past, present, and future) is eternally settled in God’s mind, and such knowledge is the basis upon which God responds to us and determines his own actions. The Calvinist, however, doesn’t need timeless knowledge to explain providence or divine action, for God knows past, present, and future without reference to any sort of timeless existence. Past, present, and future are eternally settled in God’s will. God knows the future because God determines the future. Indeed, many Calvinists have abandoned divine timelessness as incoherent at worst and a useless doctrine at best.
3) Those determinists who hold to divine timelessness do so not to explain foreknowledge, election, or providence (they know it doesn’t), but simply because their view of divine perfection requires it. It is this that appears to be SIM’s concern. The notion of perfection when applied to God requires us to believe God is not limited to time for this would place a constraint on God and render God less than maximally perfect.
4) But to maintain this understanding of divine perfection as absolutely unconstrained and unlimited by time, God must now (SIM is suggesting) be believed capable of (timelessly of course) changing even our past. If this were not so, if God were incapable of bringing it about that JFK was not assassinated (yes, SIM, I realize that if God were to do this we’d never know it or sense it, as your son said; but God would know it—God would know that there once existed a past FOR US in which JFK was assassinated and that this is now not our past), then there would presumably be a “limit” placed on God. Since we can’t have that, God must be thought capable of changing the past.
5) But once God is believed capable of changing the past, the argument that timeless knowledge is the basis upon which God brings about his will in the first place is blown out of the water. Think about it.
6) In addition, a God who possesses timeless knowledge knows all that transpires as it transpires. So the question of God “changing” what is past for us is out of the question, for the proposed changes are equally timelessly known by God.
7) The idea that God can change our past makes theodicy more a nightmare than it already is. How are we to make sense of the Bible’s description of God as “regretting” the past if we also insist God is able to change that past? This view is no better than determinism at explaining such passages. God regrets the past, can change it, but doesn’t. God kills all human beings on earth except for Noah and his family. So far God has not changed this bit of history ('cause it's still our history!). One could object, however, that if God is assumed capable of changing this bit of history, that an all-loving God would do so. God can change the Holocaust, rid humanity’s history of Hitler and Pol Pot and fill the earth with Mother Teresas, but he chooses not to? Hmmm.
8) The previous note leads to this, the worst of all. Changing the past completely destroys free will and undermines the basis for moral responsibility. For God to timelessly bring it about that some evil did not occur, those responsible for committing the crime are no longer responsible. They may no longer exist in fact. Their choice to commit the crime in question certainly doesn’t exist. So they cannot be held responsible for it. And whatever history of the world results from God’s changing it, it follows that all the choices, good and evil, that constitute the new divinely and timelessly rewritten history were (this is important) not made by the agents themselves, not even compatibilistically, for in many cases agents will have lived and died in our memories and textbooks only, without ever having actually existed in time in the flesh.
9) Lastly, the problem in this is the understanding of “perfection” that drives timelessness. I find nothing admirably perfect or praiseworthy in the notion of timelessness. Nothing whatsoever. Also, timeless knowledge cannot be the basis upon which God is believed to be able to prevent or bring about what he wishes, for what is timelessly known is already the result of whatever divine influence contributed to bringing it about. If God possessed such knowledge, he couldn’t do anything with it. It follows, then, that if God’s being perfect means being absolutely unlimited by time restraints, then even timelessness as currently conceived fails to uphold this notion of divine perfection, for God cannot make use of such knowledge to prevent or bring about what he desires. This is a limit which timeless knowledge places on God. Hmmm. And the claim that God can change the past is only slightly less alarming than the belief that God must be thought capable of such a thing if he is to be perfect.
SIM, what would come crashing down for you if it was true that God was not timeless in the sense you’ve been arguing for? What’s at stake here in your opinion?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 127 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:54 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 |
|
|