 |
| 
upg validator
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 10/16/2003 5:41 AM (GMT -6) |   |  Dr. Boyd:
I saw you at UMD yesterday evening. During your explanation to another student concerning open theism, you explored the concept that *od is all-intelligent and knows that there are many possible outcomes as to the things that will occur forwards and backwards in time, or something to that effect. If this is true, then *e would know from the beginning that the outcome of my lifetime as this person would be that I would be a polytheist, and therefore your argument(s) about Christianity being the only true religion/reality holds no water; because, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN THEORY, there are *many* realities, and that all of those were created by *od. Ergo, you cannot dismiss my religion as being false, since they were also realities created by *od. And if *e is so d*mn*d smart, then I wouldn't be lead down the "wrong" path because an intelligent creature would not construct false realities. So, by your very statements, either *od is not that smart after all, or *e enjoys playing sadistics games with people's lives. Neither alternative seems too attractive to me.
Thank you for your time,
A Concerned Polytheistic Pluralist
Filomena Sophia | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 10/16/2003 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm sure that Dr. Boyd will respond for himself, but I don't think he'll mind if I pitch in.
Dear UPG,
Before criticizing and rejecting a person's viewpoint it is essential to understand it correctly. Otherwise the position one critiques and rejects is likely to be a charicature, not the real thing. From what you have written it is obvious to me that you do not understand open theism, nor does it appear that you have yet seriously tried to understand it. Please read Dr. Boyd's published work, especially "The God of the Possible", before presuming to discern contradictions in his position on the basis of nothing more than a few remarks that you don't even remember accurately (as you say, "or something to that effect"). If you aren't quite sure what someone said or meant, you should politely ask for clarification. To rush to judgment, as you have, is very uncharitable.
Dr. Boyd's position is that God is infinitely intelligent, i.e., he knows all possibilities and can perfectly and instantly trace out all possible ramifications of any possibility. Moreover, his position is that the future is, in part, genuinely open--it is not completely settled now what will be. Accordingly, God, who is omniscient, knows the future as such, i.e., as partly open, partly fixed.
Now, from Dr. Boyd's position it emphatically does not follow, as you claim, that "He would know from the beginning that the outcome of my lifetime as this person would be that I would be a polytheist." On the contrary, he would say that God knew from the beginning that it was possible that you would come to exist and possible that you would come to embrace polytheism, but not that it would necessarily or inevitably be so. Moreover, your claim that on Dr. Boyd's theory there exist "many" realities all created by God is simply false. His view is that there is only one actual reality, but many ways in which that reality might have been and many ways in which the future of this actual reality might pan out.
Can Dr. Boyd consistently claim that your religion is false? Yes. It is false if what you claim (i.e., polytheism) does not correspond to the way reality is. Since he thinks there is a particular way in which reality is, his claim that polytheism is false is clearly coherent.
One last point, your statements about how God would be "sadistic" if he led you "down the wrong path" suppose that, if God has created all realities, then God is the one who has in fact led you down this path and made you come to believe something that is false. This assumption is false, for it ignores both the possibility and reality of free will. Your conclusion would follow only if God made you a polytheist. Dr. Boyd, open theists, and Christians in general deny this. In reality you have a free will, as do many other beings. If you wind up believing something that is false, that is not God's fault, but may be in part the fault of others who have misled you and may be in part your own fault for not exercising proper care in pursuit of the truth.
Welcome to the discussion.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/16/2003 8:17 PM (GMT -6) | | HI upg validator, glad you joined us.
I really can't improve on what Alan said. God knew all you MIGHT choose to do, but not all you would END UP choosing to do. And he certainly didn't lead you down the path you chose to go.
I do believe polytheism is false, just as you believe monotheism is false. To believe ANYTHING is true is to believe that all that CONTRADICTS it is false. So, the question we need to ask is: Which view is TRUE. I presented a number of reasons last night why I believe its TRUE that Jesus Christ is Lord. I'd be interested in hearing your reasons as to why you think my arguments don't work, and why you thus think its true that he is NOT Lord.
Enjoyed talking with you last night, and now.
Greg
quote:
Originally posted by upg validator
Dr. Boyd:
I saw you at UMD yesterday evening. During your explanation to another student concerning open theism, you explored the concept that *od is all-intelligent and knows that there are many possible outcomes as to the things that will occur forwards and backwards in time, or something to that effect. If this is true, then *e would know from the beginning that the outcome of my lifetime as this person would be that I would be a polytheist, and therefore your argument(s) about Christianity being the only true religion/reality holds no water; because, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN THEORY, there are *many* realities, and that all of those were created by *od. Ergo, you cannot dismiss my religion as being false, since they were also realities created by *od. And if *e is so d*mn*d smart, then I wouldn't be lead down the "wrong" path because an intelligent creature would not construct false realities. So, by your very statements, either *od is not that smart after all, or *e enjoys playing sadistics games with people's lives. Neither alternative seems too attractive to me.
Thank you for your time,
A Concerned Polytheistic Pluralist
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
upg validator
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 10/17/2003 5:22 AM (GMT -6) | | On the contrary: I don't believe that monotheism is false. (Heh, heh, I am not the *only* one making assumptions here...) Being a pluralist (which can be briefly described as "there are many worlds with many beings"), I am not limited in my viewpoint that monotheistic traditions are false traditions; although the opposite rings true. Actually, pluralism is not that far away from what you all have described to me as "open theism." Yes, there are many possibilities; and I *do* maintain that if *od is INFINITELY intelligent, then *e should know all possible outcomes; if *e is INFINITELY loving, then it should not matter to *od whether I be a polytheist or a monotheist. To believe otherwise would be conditional love; and either *od's love is conditional or it is unconditional. To be INFINITELY loving, *od would have to opt for the latter, would *e not?
You also have to understand that Reconstructionist Polytheists such as myself HAVE NO CONCEPT of this so-called "free-will" which you keep referring to. Free-will is recognized as an illusion in polytheistic circles; the Gods ARE infinitely intelligent, WE are not. We deceive ourselves into thinking that we have free-will so that we can feel better about our short, mortal lives. In truth, according to our ancient polytheistic ancestors (Gentiles and Hebrews alike), everything is pre-destined. I often hear Christians echoing this ancient understanding in the words "*od's plan for me."
Believe in free-will if you like, believe in only ONE (read: dualistic) Truth, if you must, but you will never convince me. I am a grown woman with a 146 I.Q. who has studied religions to exhaustion, and I can only conclude that the only sane viewpoint for religion reflects the only sane viewpoint for America: pluralism. Anything else threatens governmental theorcracy. And THAT, my dear friends, is what concerns me the most!
-A Concerned Polytheistic Pluralist
Filomena Sophia | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/17/2003 5:48 AM (GMT -6) | | UPG: I am not sure why you are dialoging, if you aren't open to other views. "But you will never convince me..." hmmm. One would wish you would at least be open to the possibility of other views if you issue a challenge for someone to defend their views...
BTW, I am glad you are a grown woman with such a high IQ. But perhaps you could explain to me how that is relevant to the discussion? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 10/17/2003 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I don't believe monotheism is false.
Monotheism and polytheism are logical contraries. They can't both be true. Since you claim to be a polytheist, you are contradicting yourself if you don't hold that monotheism is false.
quote:
Being a pluralist (which can be briefly described as "there are many worlds with many beings"), I am not limited in my viewpoint that monotheistic traditions are false traditions; although the opposite rings true.
That's not a very good definition of pluralism (what do you mean be "worlds"?). What you seem to mean is that there is no one correct description of reality, perhaps because there allegedly is no determinate reality. Different people have different perspectives on reality (e.g., some are polytheists and some are monotheists), but none is strictly true or false because there is no determinate way that reality is.
The basic problem with pluralism is that it is incoherent. It purports to state as a definite truth that there are no definite truths. For example, you are an inconsistent pluralist when you try to correct Dr. Boyd and others. If no view is more true than any other, then you have no basis on which to correct anybody of anything.
quote:
If *e is INFINITELY loving, then it should not matter to *od whether I be a polytheist or a monotheist. To believe otherwise would be conditional love; and either *od's love is conditional or it is unconditional. To be INFINITELY loving, *od would have to opt for the latter, would *e not?
On the contrary, if God loves us unconditionally then he will want what is truly best for us, and that means being rightly and truly related to the ultimate source of all that is good and true, namely, Himself. If, therefore, monotheism is true, then God would be unloving if He didn't want us to be monotheists. To suppose otherwise, is to suppose that what we believe about ultimate reality is unimportant, a viewpoint you seem to disagree with because you say that viewpoints other than pluralism are dangerous.
quote:
You also have to understand that Reconstructionist Polytheists such as myself HAVE NO CONCEPT of this so-called "free-will" which you keep referring to. Free-will is recognized as an illusion in polytheistic circles. ... We deceive ourselves into thinking that we have free-will so that we can feel better about our short, mortal lives. In truth, according to our ancient polytheistic ancestors (Gentiles and Hebrews alike), everything is pre-destined. I often hear Christians echoing this ancient understanding in the words "*od's plan for me."
Obviously you do have a concept of free-will if you think it is an illusion. It would be like my saying that "Santa Claus" is an illusion and yet have no concept of Santa Claus. If you have no concept of free will, then your claim that it is an illusion has no content; it says nothing. That you do have a concept of free will is also evident in your denial of it: "everything is pre-destined." Now this is not what Christians typically mean when they speak of God's plan. Christians make a distinction between God's sovereign will and his permissive or moral will. What God sovereignly wills is pre-determined, but not everything is pre-determined. There are some things that God would like to happen, but he permits not to happen so as to allow his creatures a measure of freedom. Your claim that everything is pre-determined is, by the way, the exact antithesis of open theism.
quote:
Believe in free-will if you like, believe in only ONE (read: dualistic) Truth, if you must, but you will never convince me. I am a grown woman with a 146 I.Q. who has studied religions to exhaustion ...
If nothing will convince you otherwise, then you are a dogmatist. You dogmatically think that you are right and that people who disagree with you (like Dr. Boyd and myself) are wrong. That not very pluralistic.
quote:
The only sane viewpoint for religion reflects the only sane viewpoint for America: pluralism. Anything else threatens governmental theocracy. And THAT, my dear friends, is what concerns me the most!
There are two types of pluralism that we need to distinguish. On the one hand, there is pluralism with respect to ideas, to allow people the intellectual freedom to disagree. This kind of pluralism is sane. Both Dr. Boyd, myself, and almost all Christians would support that. On the other hand, there is pluralism with respect to truth. This kind of pluralism is not only not sane, but it is the most insane viewpoint for religion, or anything else for that matter. What it ultimately implies is that religion doesn't matter, that truth doesn't matter. That is the truly dangerous viewpoint.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
upg validator
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 10/17/2003 7:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh, and one more thing:
My concept of religion is that it is not meant to draw people together; rather, by its very nature, separates people and pulls them apart. The idea of a one Universal religion sickens me, because it doesn't allow for cell rememberence of one's ancestral callings. I'd also like to know the following: (though perhaps a bit off-topic)
1) If one is not to make graven images of anything on heaven or earth, does *od hate art?
2) Why would *od wait 10,000 years to reveal himself as a human? What makes this alleged time of his becoming mortal (approximately just over 2000 years ago) so much more important than any other struggling time? And why wait? Why not just reveal his nature at the get-go?
and, finally, 3) define the PLURALISTIC PRONOUN *Elohim,* which was in the original text of what is now known as Genesis I.
-Thank you in advance,
Aite Sec
Filomena Sophia | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 10/17/2003 8:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi UPG Validator,
You ask so many good questions, some of which I've asked myself and still haven't figured out yet. Like just the other night, I asked my Bible study group why God didn't just save humanity right after Adam and Eve sinned instead of waiting so many thousands of years. It does seem strange doesn't it? I've speculated about it and some of what I've thought of makes sense to me but I don't want to post any of my ideas here, because I don't know if they're true for sure. They're really only speculations.
Actually you kind of remind me of my brother, Tom, because he has a high IQ, also and so thinks about things at higher levels of comprehension than the average person does. So, it's hard for me to give him answers that satisfy him.
He also struggles with a lot of resentment about the whole world situation (the injustice) and his own personal trials. But, I think that more of his questioning stems from his anger at God for bad things happening, and not so much from a lack of understanding of theology or how things work spiritually. When he asks some questions, there's more than a hint of anger behind them, and so it's almost like he knows there's probably a good explanation for things, but he just wants to be sure.
I don't know why I'm telling you all this. You're not my brother, so you might simply be asking these questions out of curiosity alone and not because of personal issues. But, I just wanted you to know that even Christians ask these big questions and it can be a real struggle and frustrating at times. I hope you find the answers you need. I hope I do too - and my brother!
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 10/17/2003 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Validator,
I would really like to hear your response to Alan's last post. I think that he has posed some difficulties with the consistency of your position. I was going to ask you about these contradictions, but he beat me to it.  One more question, though. You said quote:
You also have to understand that Reconstructionist Polytheists such as myself HAVE NO CONCEPT of this so-called "free-will" which you keep referring to. Free-will is recognized as an illusion in polytheistic circles; the Gods ARE infinitely intelligent, WE are not. We deceive ourselves into thinking that we have free-will so that we can feel better about our short, mortal lives. In truth, according to our ancient polytheistic ancestors (Gentiles and Hebrews alike), everything is pre-destined.
How can "we deceive ourselves into thinking that we have free will" if we is no free will? Wouldn't your position imply that "the gods" deceive us by making us think that we have free will?
In your understanding of reality do the gods have reasons for their actions? if so what reason would they have for determining that I, Doc,Alan and Laika have this belief in Christianity which you say is incorrect and not the "the only sane viewpoint for religion... pluralism."
Enjoying the conversation,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/17/2003 9:21 AM (GMT -6) | | UPG: the simple statement "you will never convince me..." sounds as if you are already closed to the issue, is all. I would never say that to any person who disagree with me, because I believe that while I possess the ultimate truth, Gods truth is reflected in aspects of just about all religions, so there is always a possibility I could learn something from someone else. I always want to be open to that.
That said I would agree with you: Christians are called to convert non-believers because we believe it is the truth. I have no respect for any belief system that does not want to convert other people to it. If you truly believe yours is the best, then you should want others to believe it. Otherwise, I don't see why it would be worth having. | | Back to Top | | |
|
upg validator
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 10/17/2003 12:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Also: honorman,
I DON'T believe my religion to be the best for everybody. Etruscan Reconstructionism, like every other Polytheistic Reconstructionist Religion out there, is a TRIBAL religion, NOT a Universal one. (Tribal, as in ancient Judiasm). It is not meant to be shared with outdwellers (much in the same way that the ancient Jews did not pass on THEIR oral traditions to Gentiles); it is not for everyone, and it certainly is not for the faint of heart, nor for those who cannot think outside of the "certain" One God frame.
If *everybody* knew the Jesus Christ story to be true, then all other religions would have ceased to exist. But, as we can see, that has not happened. Instead, other religions continue to exist, despite the constant hearing of "the sharing of the Good News."
Hm....makes ya' wonder WHY, doesn't it?
Filomena Sophia | | Back to Top | | |
|
upg validator
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 10/17/2003 12:58 PM (GMT -6) | | And, last but not least, you cannot PROVE the validity or invalidity of ANY religion; you can only prove whether said religion actually exists.
Furthermore, monotheism is the BELIEF in one God; polytheism is the BELIEF in many Gods. Neither reality cqn be proven to be false, because there is no clear human way to prove or disprove either one of these. You could point out to me, for instance, your relationship to Jesus Christ. I could counter point that by describing my personal relationship with, say, Aite (Etruscan god of the underworld). Neither of us can PROVE these realities.
Ah! But, THE BIBLE, you say! You cannot prove the Bible by using the Bible. The Bible simply is no more valid to me as a holy document outside of your faith; anymore than, say, the Quaran is a valid holy document to YOU outside of the Islamic faith.
I think that about covers it for now.
Filomena Sophia | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 10/17/2003 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 10/17/2003 7:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Here, here, I totally agree. I've driven the subject away. I would like to hear your answers to Alan's questions as well...
BTW, free will makes other religions possible whether or not there is one true religion, so, no I don't really wonder much about that. And two, yes, I do believe other realities are false. Just like I believe there is a color that is black and a color that is white and changing their names doesn't change the fact that they are two different colors and not the same color.
BTW2, why does the concept of one religion sicken you? If a employer starts a business and he is the sole owner of said company then it is his right to run it any way he feels. And if there is just one God and he chooses to act in a certain way, I cannot see where that is sickening.
HAving made these comments, I truly hope you return to Alan's excellant questions and answer them. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:48 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|