 |
| 
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/6/2005 10:06 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Laika said...
The bank called about the lack of a current mortage payment.
I told them..........<drumroll>......"Just remember the last one!"
Merrill: Well, the question is whether the past payment can be considered still an actual event. Not whether it will pay the next mortgage payment!
Laika: Presentism deals with PRESENT events. That's what we mean by "actual". It's PRESENTLY ACTUAL. Not a memory. The MEMORY of the last payment will not satisfy the bank because they want a PRESENT payment. This shows how MEMORIES are distinguishable from PRESENT ACTUALITIES.
No matter how vivid your memory of an event is, that event PRESENTLY does not exist.
Let's say you walk across a river on a bridge every day; you can use the bridge because it's PRESENT on that day.
One night a storm washes the bridge away. The next day you approach the river. No matter how vividly you remember the bridge, the bridge PRESENTLY does not exist and you cannot cross the river.
That's what presentism is about. (And having NO bridge is very distinguishable from having a bridge)
But you don't understand it. So you close your eyes, vividly picture the bridge, step into the river, are pulled under by the current and drown, making the world a smarter place.
 "I remember a bridge, I <glub> remember <glub> a bridge <glub><glub>...."
If I REMEMBER cutting myself, I do NOT bleed.
If I EXPERIENCE cutting myself, I presently BLEED.
Very BLOODY distinguishable.
If I presently experience eating, my body gets food.
If I only remember eating, my body doesn't get food.
Very distinguishable.
"in the bar, in the senate, in the alley, in the study
pimping dreams of riches for everybody" Post Edited (Laika) : 12/7/2005 4:35:44 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/7/2005 8:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika said...
No matter how vivid your memory of an event is, that event PRESENTLY does not exist.
That would be the conclusion! I would want the evidence, too, though...
Laika said...  "I remember a bridge, I <glub> remember <glub> a bridge <glub><glub>...."
Hope that's not the Lee vortex!
Laika said...
Very distinguishable.
Certainly, I have no dispute with this, memories are indeed distinguishable from present events. That does not mean that the past cannot be real, though!
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/7/2005 10:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee Merrill said...Laika said...
No matter how vivid your memory of an event is, that event PRESENTLY does not exist. That would be the conclusion! I would want the evidence, too, though...
That's what I've been presenting, evidence.
I remember cutting my knee in the past. I look at my knee, it's not bleeding. Why? Because the event of cutting my knee is PAST, not PRESENT and doesn't exist anymore. If the event still existed, the blood would be gushing out of my knee, presently.
If I only REMEMBER eating, I would starve to death. Why? Because remembered food does not exist and cannot sustain me. I need to eat "present" food to live, not just remember past meals.
It's the same with objects. I burn up a box. Does the box exist, presently?
No, despite how vivid my memory of the box, the box does not presently exist. So also, the event of burning the box no longer exists. Presently, no box, no burning of box.
It's pretty simple but you can see why "presentists" spend time trying to ground the truth of past events, because past events don't exist anymore, they are not "present".
For example, if I say it's true I KOed Mike Tyson in a boxing match, you would be wise to say "prove it". If all I could provide was "I remember doing it", you'd be wise to not believe me. I should have to provide something more "present" and concrete than my memories.
It is an interesting topic.
"in the bar, in the senate, in the alley, in the study
pimping dreams of riches for everybody" Post Edited (Laika) : 12/8/2005 10:23:37 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/8/2005 6:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika said...
It's the same with objects. I burn up a box. Does the box exist, presently?
No, but does the past exist, when the box was there?
Laika said...
It's pretty simple but you can see why "presentists" spend time trying to ground the truth of past events, because past events don't exist anymore, they are not "present".
So then a proof by Euclid, is it a present event? How about a future proof? I think it does exist, though, in either case! How about a story that was written and lost? Does the story itself still exist, without the book?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/8/2005 11:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika said...
It's the same with objects. I burn up a box. Does the box exist, presently?
Lee:
No, but does the past exist, when the box was there?
Laika:
When the box existed, it was the present. But it doesn't exist now. It's existence is past.
The fact that you cannot hand me the non-existent box proves it doesn't exist anymore. The box and the event of it's burning no longer exist. Past events no longer exist, else you would prove it to me, demonstrably.
Lee:
So then a proof by Euclid, is it a present event? How about a future proof?
Laika:
Euclid no longer exists. If he does, take a photo of him holding today's newspaper to prove he presently exists.
If you work Euclid's proof, that event of you working Euclid's proof presently exists.
If future proofs presently exist, then so do unicorns and square circles. You show me a future proof NOW and I'll show you a square circle.
Lee:
How about a story that was written and lost? Does the story itself still exist, without the book?
Laika:
If no one knows the story, does it exist? It has the same existence as a unicorn no one has seen.
I look around my house, where are the people who lived here in the past? If the past currently exists, where are they?
Thousands of events have occurred in my house, why don't I see them if they presently exist, Lee?
I cut my knee as a kid, if that presently exists, why is there no blood or cut on my knee NOW?
"in the bar, in the senate, in the alley, in the study
pimping dreams of riches for everybody" Post Edited (Laika) : 12/8/2005 10:43:24 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/8/2005 11:45 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
Laika, you'll be banned from the site if you talk to Lee anymore! If you wanna talk to him, just remember past threads.
I wouldn't call it a dialogue, I'm just playing to his dada-esque shtik.
The fish!
"in the bar, in the senate, in the alley, in the study
pimping dreams of riches for everybody" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/10/2005 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Laika said...
The fact that you cannot hand me the non-existent box proves it doesn't exist anymore. The box and the event of it's burning no longer exist. Past events no longer exist, else you would prove it to me, demonstrably.
Argh. I agree that the box does not exist, because the event is past. But does the past (not the box!) exist? That is the question.
Certainly also the present exists! And the box is not there.
various folks said...
Lee: So then a proof by Euclid, is it a present event? How about a future proof?
Laika: Euclid no longer exists. If he does, take a photo of him holding today's newspaper to prove he presently exists.
No, I am asking if proofs, which are indeed real, exist only in the present moment. It seems they are timeless! Especially if there is only one way to prove a theorem. So does a proof yet to be discovered exist now? Has it always existed? It seems it has, the present moment is not required, neither is recognition of the proof, for it to be real.
Laika said...
I look around my house, where are the people who lived here in the past? If the past currently exists, where are they?
In the past, of course! Which may be quite real, and which is distinguishable from the present.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/10/2005 6:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika:
The fact that you cannot hand me the non-existent box proves it doesn't exist anymore. The box and the event of it's burning no longer exist. Past events no longer exist...
Lee:
Argh. I agree that the box does not exist, because the event is past. But does the past (not the box!) exist? That is the question.
Laika:
The box does not exist.
The event of me burning the box does not exist.
"Past" means "having existed or occurred in an earlier time"*, so asking if the past is present is not a valid question. It's a contradiction.
See how the definition lists both objects ("existed", the box) and events ("occurred", I burned the box). Both are past and no longer exist.
*dictionary.com
"in the bar, in the senate, in the alley, in the study
pimping dreams of riches for everybody" Post Edited (Laika) : 12/10/2005 6:26:07 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/10/2005 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | | The future exists as "Hope."
Otherwise you would not be able to talk about it.
That you can talk about it means that the future exists.
But one must be refering to something sure, worthy of faith.
We hope "in the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting."
But is true that we live in the present. It is right that we do. Living in the past or living in the supposed future is not good for you. "Now" is the appointed hour. Every day has enough trouble of its own. Live in the present.
But "hope" is the future in the present. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/10/2005 9:57 PM (GMT -6) | |
rj1 said...
The future exists as "Hope."
Otherwise you would not be able to talk about it.
That you can talk about it means that the future exists.
But one must be refering to something sure, worthy of faith.
We hope "in the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting."
But is true that we live in the present. It is right that we do. Living in the past or living in the supposed future is not good for you. "Now" is the appointed hour. Every day has enough trouble of its own. Live in the present.
But "hope" is the future in the present. POWy, "Hope" is an idea and it's a present idea. We're talking about objects and events. The only objects and events that exist are the present ones.
And they are very distinguishable from memories of past things and events.
"in the bar, in the senate, in the alley, in the study
pimping dreams of riches for everybody" Post Edited (Laika) : 12/10/2005 9:13:17 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/12/2005 10:48 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Certainly, "The only objects and events that exist are the present ones."
BUT it is also agreeable to say ""Hope" is an idea and it's a present idea."
That was my point. It is future existing in the present. And "Faith is the substance of things hoped for."
You and I aren't saved until we bet out new bodies (at the last judgement). Until then Paul says it is only hope and faith. All the same while we carry these bodies of "flesh" we can participate in something that will be ours in the future. We do that by faith in Christ's faith.
No objection. Actually I think you just repeated my point.
(Not my own point actually. I heard it in a sermon by the editor of Touchstone Mag -- "The magazine of 'mere Christianity'") | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/12/2005 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Looking at what both you and I posted above, I have to wonder whether "hope" is completely contained in the term "idea." It certainly seems more as Paul used it.
rj1 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/12/2005 10:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Laika said...
The event of me burning the box does not exist.
Well, that is what is being discussed.
Laika said...
"Past" means "having existed or occurred in an earlier time"...
Certainly, the question however is whether events that occurred at earlier times may be said to exist.
rj1 said...
That was my point. It is future existing in the present. And "Faith is the substance of things hoped for."
Excellent point! A good stroke...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 12/13/2005 2:56 PM (GMT -6) | | I interpret the Bible to be saying that the past exists, because I already believe that the past exists, because I interpret the Bible to be saying that the past exists, because I already believe that the past exists, because I interpret the Bible to be saying that the past exists, because I already believe that the past exists, because I interpret the Bible to be saying that the past exists, because I already believe that the past exists, because I interpret the Bible to be saying that the past exists, because I already believe that the past exists, because I interpret the Bible to be saying that the past exists, because I already believe that the past exists, because...
It's internally consistent, but it's a belief that is unneccesary for Christianity and does not correspond to experience, so why bother?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/17/2005 7:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
Sahid said...
It seems that open theism and determinism both make sense, but determinism has God punishing his creation for things they could not help.
Well, as we have discussed before, unintentional sins still bring guilt, and responsibility (e.g. Lev. 5:17).
Sahid said...
Furthermore, if God foresaw the situation ahead of time but still decided to set things in motion deterministically, then he is the only agent responsible for sin.
Responsible for the outcome! Can a given sin have a good outcome?
Did the cross?
Sahid said...
The two biggest problems I've seen with open theism are (1) its biblical faithfulness ...
I would consider that a good feature! Assuming you mean faithfulness to scripture, though I would of course consider my own view to be the one most to be preferred on this point!
Sahid said...
Number two is often seen as a negative, but it seems to be that any God who doesn't limit or weaken himself isn't very much like Jesus.
That would get into difficulty in various areas though, would it not?
Jesus did not know the day of his coming again, would that mean that God might not be really omniscient? This would make it more difficult to really predict the future, even in the Open View. Jesus was "asleep on the pillow," yet God never slumbers or sleeps, or maybe this is wrong?
What do we discount, and how much? It seems there are no sure boundaries here, and God could be as Rabbi Kushner portrays him, where "The response would be Job's response in MacLeish's version of the biblical story—to forgive the world for not being perfect, to forgive God for not making a better world, to reach out to the people around us, and to go on living despite it all."
It seems all the anchors are loose, and God could be a god, like the Greeks thought of divinity...
But I found my difficulties! Not that I usually go about looking for difficulties, but Google preserved some previous discussions on the topic of whether God is in time:
If God is not in time, this resolves several difficulties, such as (a difficulty for the Calvinists) "When did God's decrees occur?" But if God is not in time, then his decrees are also timeless.
Here is another difficulty:
Rabbi Peli said...
Rabbi Peli began his first lecture by asking the question, "Why did God create the world?" Then he answered his own question by stating, "Because God planned to create Man, and wanted a place to put him." Next came the second question, "Why did God create Man?" The answer this time was, "Because God was lonely, and wanted someone to talk to."
Or in James Weldon Johnson's words, "And God stepped out on space and looked around and said: I'm lonely – I'll make me a world."
But if God is not in time, God is not lonely, and he wasn't lonely, for God knew every person before they were born.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 12/17/2005 6:59:04 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 12/20/2005 1:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, Tom, they aren't problems for me; they are the two basic complaints I've heard. I believe these complaints have been answered to a sufficient degree. Biblical faithfulness is a problem, because the message of the Bible is "up for grabs." It's a negative in that you can't prove that the Bible supports open theism; it's a positive in that you can't prove that it doesn't. You can't claim to know THE biblical teaching on the matter, because there is not ONE biblical teaching. The Bible is a collection of many books which come from various viewpoints and containt different, often conflicting teachings. Having read the Bible, thought on my own, prayed, and talked to others my viewpoint is the open theist one. I think it's the only one that both makes sense and worships a God who resembles Jesus.
In the same way a limitted or weakened God is a problem on the face of things. But when you think about it, we should expect God to weaken himself. He must if he is to act at all. By acting he drastically cuts the number of posibilities for himself. He did this at a certain time, but not that. Furthermore, Jesus, the perfect revelation of God, chose weakness.
Lee: Well, as we have discussed before, unintentional sins still bring guilt, and responsibility (e.g. Lev. 5:17).
Zach: No they don't. Leviticus was wrong; Jesus was right. John 9:41
Lee: Responsible for the outcome! Can a given sin have a good outcome?
Zach: Romans 6:1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
The cross did have a good outcome. Does that mean Pilot was a hero?
Lee: I would consider that a good feature! Assuming you mean faithfulness to scripture, though I would of course consider my own view to be the one most to be preferred on this point!
Zach: Biblical faithfulness is a good feature. I was talking about the degree to which it is not. And I know you consider your interpretation better, but it's not that convincing when your interpretation is based on a worldview that is based on your interpretation which is based on a worldview that is based on your interpretation...
Lee: Jesus did not know the day of his coming again, would that mean that God might not be really omniscient?
Zach: Not unless you load the word with determinism beforehand. More circular reasoning.
Lee: This would make it more difficult to really predict the future, even in the Open View.
Zach: Certainly.
Lee: Jesus was "asleep on the pillow," yet God never slumbers or sleeps, or maybe this is wrong?
Zach: Jesus is God. Jesus slept. Therefore God slept. Anyone who says otherwise either is denying the divinity of Jesus, speaking non-literally, or doesn't understand his own language.
Lee: What do we discount, and how much? It seems there are no sure boundaries here, and God could be as Rabbi Kushner portrays him, where "The response would be Job's response in MacLeish's version of the biblical story—to forgive the world for not being perfect, to forgive God for not making a better world, to reach out to the people around us, and to go on living despite it all."
It seems all the anchors are loose, and God could be a god, like the Greeks thought of divinity...
Zach: No, there is an anchor. There is one perfect way of knowing what God is like (at least that is what Christians believe on faith). God is Jesus. In the context of this discussion that means that God, like Jesus, lays down his own life. God sacrifices himself and yet he remains powerful, he remains God. In one sense weakness; in another strength. If he can make a cross so heavy that he can't lift it, then he can make a world so free that he can't predict it. (In reality, it's not the cross or the world that overpower God; it's that God allows himself to be overpowered for a time.)
Lee: If God is not in time, this resolves several difficulties, such as (a difficulty for the Calvinists) "When did God's decrees occur?" But if God is not in time, then his decrees are also timeless.
Zach: I don't understand. Can you explain this?
Lee: Or in James Weldon Johnson's words, "And God stepped out on space and looked around and said: I'm lonely – I'll make me a world."
But if God is not in time, God is not lonely, and he wasn't lonely, for God knew every person before they were born.
Zach: First of all, open theism by no means forces God to be lonely before creation. Second, so what if he was lonely? He was lonely in the garden. He was lonely on the cross. Was he not God?
This might help explain where I'm coming from. In order for God to be God, he must be the first cause or ultimate power in (or beyond) the universe. If that ultimate power was bad, then we'd have a bad God. If it was irrational, we'd have a stupid God. If impersonal, then an impersonal God. These aren't contradictions if we a using the term "God" in it's most basic sense. Power is what it means to be God. Without ultimate power, we're left with a "god" at best. With ultimate power we've got a "God" regardless of what other attributes he might have. God is the ultimate reason why. But for God to act he must choose one thing over another. That's what it means to act. Even for God not to act he (maybe indirectly) chooses one thing over another, inaction over action. For God to be, he chooses. For him to choose, he eliminates choices (possible worlds). For him to eliminate choices, he limits himself. To be is to limit oneself. One course is taken but not another. So every being is limitted in some sense. It should come as no surprise then that when God came in flesh he continued to be limitted, ultimately by his own will but also through the will of his creation.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 12/20/2005 1:17:43 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/20/2005 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
Or may I call you Zach? I am assuming that this is your real name…
Sahid said...
By acting he drastically cuts the number of posibilities for himself.
I don’t know that continuing possibilities is a necessary part of strength though. Or maybe God can change the past! If he really can forget, that might be what that means.
various folks said...
Lee: Well, as we have discussed before, unintentional sins still bring guilt, and responsibility (e.g. Lev. 5:17).
Zach: No they don't. Leviticus was wrong; Jesus was right. John 9:41
I hope you mean this sort of tongue in cheek! Both Leviticus and Jesus must be right, I think, so then Jesus may have meant some other type of blindness than unintentional sin. I expect that he did, for the opposite of blindness is someone claiming to see! Rather than really seeing. So maybe blindness is actually a recognition of our true condition, as in Laodicea, in Rev. 3:14-18.
various folks said...
Lee: Responsible for the outcome! Can a given sin have a good outcome?
Zach: Romans 6:1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means!
Certainly we are not to embark on sin because of some thought of a good outcome! But we do not know the ends of our actions, and God bringing about a sinful action is also not the same as God sinning in order to bring about good results. Of more grace?! So I don’t think this verse really applies to God decreeing actions involving other’s sins.
Sahid said...
The cross did have a good outcome. Does that mean Pilot was a hero?
No, because his intent and motive was quite different. The motive and intent is what is critical, you accidently trip me up, my anger subsides when you tell me it was an accident, you just try and trip me up, my anger will continue, even if your attempt failed.
various folks said...
Lee: Jesus did not know the day of his coming again, would that mean that God might not be really omniscient?
Zach: Not unless you load the word with determinism beforehand. More circular reasoning.
But this fact was known by the Father! So then I need not insist on determinism here. Yet Jesus did not know a real fact, so then maybe God the Father may not know some real facts, as well?!
various folks said...
Lee: Jesus was "asleep on the pillow," yet God never slumbers or sleeps, or maybe this is wrong?
Zach: Jesus is God. Jesus slept. Therefore God slept.
But not God the Father. God being a Trinity gets around these difficulties, I think, since "God" means all three persons. The "Jesus Only" people would have a difficulty here, though.
Sahid said...
Zach: No, there is an anchor. There is one perfect way of knowing what God is like (at least that is what Christians believe on faith). God is Jesus. In the context of this discussion that means that God, like Jesus, lays down his own life. God sacrifices himself and yet he remains powerful, he remains God. In one sense weakness; in another strength. If he can make a cross so heavy that he can't lift it, then he can make a world so free that he can't predict it. (In reality, it's not the cross or the world that overpower God; it's that God allows himself to be overpowered for a time.)
Yes, but you were saying more, I think, that this is typical of God, so then would we not have that "Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world" (Heb. 9:26)?
And then we have to ask how far this weakness extends, as part of God’s nature, where can we say we must stop? I can see no indication of a limit.
various folks said...
Lee: If God is not in time, this resolves several difficulties, such as (a difficulty for the Calvinists) "When did God's decrees occur?" But if God is not in time, then his decrees are also timeless.
Zach: I don't understand. Can you explain this?
The question was with regard to when God made his decrees, such as when he decided on creation. The difficulty is if God made a decision, then did he know of that decision beforehand? Surely he must have, knowing all there must be to know about himself, and creation was most probably one of the freest acts of God, not contingent on any other being. Yet then he really made the decision before he made the decision, and so on.
various folks said...
Lee: But if God is not in time, God is not lonely, and he wasn't lonely, for God knew every person before they were born.
Zach: First of all, open theism by no means forces God to be lonely before creation.
Yes, this wasn’t an Open Theism objection, this was a discussion in another forum. Theology Web! Come over and post over there, if you aren't already, your (rather unusually calm) and perceptive comments would be beneficial.
Sahid said...
Without ultimate power, we're left with a "god" at best.
Yes, I agree.
Sahid said...
With ultimate power we've got a "God" regardless of what other attributes he might have.
Here, I would disagree, holding that Jesus was worshipped in his incarnation, in his weakness, implying that the essential attributes of divinity are other than just complete power.
Sahid said...
For him to eliminate choices, he limits himself. To be is to limit oneself. One course is taken but not another. So every being is limited in some sense.
I agree, but I would consider that more a limitation to logic, which doesn’t seem to essentially limit God.
Sahid said...
If Jesus is fully God and fully man, then the way I see it we have two options. We can say that the categories "God" and "man," "divinity" and humanity" do not contradict.
I’m not sure if this was addressed to me, but yes, I believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man, and that the two natures do not conflict. What it seems is under discussion here is what it means to "be God"…
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 12/20/2005 12:33:04 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 12/21/2005 10:28 PM (GMT -6) | | | Lee: I don’t know that continuing possibilities is a necessary part of strength though. Or maybe God can change the past! If he really can forget, that might be what that means.
Zach: In Latin the word for strength is potentia, which is where we get "potential." In Greek it's dynamis, where we get dynamic. I think that having ability is a defining quality of "strength" especially if we use the word "omnipotence." Literally it means all-power or potential. IF God had a beginning and IF we were only describing the very first moment of his existence, then and only then could we call him omnipotent, properly speaking. But the term is commonly used in theology to talk about the present moment. In the present moment God is omnipotent; he could do anything.
If God can change the past, then it's not really the past. It would be the apparent past to us. God can't change the past, not because he's weak, but for the same reason that he can't make a rectangular football, it's nonsense. Talking about God changing the past makes as much sense as sjkgahsuyewr098304ks0vohap[ksjrh. Maybe we could re-define the term "past," but why create the confusion when we could make up a new word?
Lee: I hope you mean this sort of tongue in cheek!
Zach: No, I'm serious.
Lee: Both Leviticus and Jesus must be right, I think,
Zach: Why!? Jesus was a circumcised member of the Jewish faith and race. If Leviticus was right, then Jesus was wrong to do many of the things he did.
Lee: so then Jesus may have meant some other type of blindness than unintentional sin. I expect that he did, for the opposite of blindness is someone claiming to see! Rather than really seeing. So maybe blindness is actually a recognition of our true condition, as in Laodicea, in Rev. 3:14-18.
Zach: Jesus said that if they were blind they would not be guilty.
Lee: Certainly we are not to embark on sin because of some thought of a good outcome! But we do not know the ends of our actions, and God bringing about a sinful action is also not the same as God sinning in order to bring about good results. Of more grace?! So I don’t think this verse really applies to God decreeing actions involving other’s sins.
Zach: It does if he is causing sin. It doesn't matter what his motivations are. If he caused it, he is responsible. Maybe causing sin is the wisest course of action. Fine. Then why can't we give God credit for it. He did it. Let's give him credit. If it was unwise then it deserves blame. But to start out assuming that we should blame all bad on others and all good on God prevents us from truly being thoughtful about the issue. If I start out a discussion with the assumption that the world is flat, no amount of evidence to the contrary can convince me. It contradicts one of my fundamental axioms. So, when you start off saying that God is by definition good, of course that will also be your conclusion no matter what he actually does. You can even believe what the Torah says about God ordering genocide and call it good, just like I could look at a photo of the earth taken from space and still call it flat. If you want to accept determinism as true and then interpret, go ahead. But by doing so you've made determinism Lord instead of the Bible.
I think a better approach is to suspend judgement, look at the evidence, and then come to conclusions. We shouldn't make up a conclusion and then interpret the evidence to fit. The things the Old Testament protrays God as doing are not always good. He does some very bad things according to the Torah. Maybe they were for a "higher good," but they were still very bad in themselves. If I kill one evil man to save one million, I've served the higher good, but killing is still bad.
Lee: No, because his intent and motive was quite different. The motive and intent is what is critical, you accidently trip me up, my anger subsides when you tell me it was an accident, you just try and trip me up, my anger will continue, even if your attempt failed.
Zach: That's not what you said before. ""If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible." Remember? Motivation doesn't matter. Or does it?
Lee: But this fact was known by the Father! So then I need not insist on determinism here. Yet Jesus did not know a real fact, so then maybe God the Father may not know some real facts, as well?!... But not God the Father. God being a Trinity gets around these difficulties, I think, since "God" means all three persons. The "Jesus Only" people would have a difficulty here, though.
Zach: So, when you say God you mean "God the Father and not Jesus or the Spirit"? Ok then. Then "God" does not sleep. That's not a very orthodox view of "God" though. The mainline view is that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God. But Jesus did sleep. When he did it he was God (as he always was). So God did sleep, properly speaking. God was also crucified, died, and was buried, because Jesus was fully God.
Lee: Yes, but you were saying more, I think, that this is typical of God, so then would we not have that "Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world" (Heb. 9:26)?
Zach: I believe he did suffer many times, but when the author of Hebrews talks about Christ's suffering, I think it's pretty clear that he has something specific in mind. He is talking about sacrificially atoning suffering. At least that's what the context suggests. The yearly Hebrew sacrifice only "suffered" once, but that does not mean that the goat never felt pain beforehand.
Lee: Here, I would disagree, holding that Jesus was worshipped in his incarnation, in his weakness, implying that the essential attributes of divinity are other than just complete power.
Zach: Jesus also had fingernails in his incarnation. Does that make fingernails an necessary attribute of God? Not every attribute of Jesus is a necessary attribute of God. Only ultimate power is neccesary to the term "God" as it is commonly and meaningfully used (I might be wrong, but I'm sticking to this for now).
Lee: And then we have to ask how far this weakness extends, as part of God’s nature, where can we say we must stop? I can see no indication of a limit.
Zach: Nope, no limit. "Even to death on a cross."
Lee: I agree, but I would consider that more a limitation to logic, which doesn’t seem to essentially limit God.
Zach: So, if God is illogical, why bother believing anything? The God of the Bible brought order out of chaos.
Lee: I’m not sure if this was addressed to me, but yes, I believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man, and that the two natures do not conflict. What it seems is under discussion here is what it means to "be God"…
Zach: Ok, so God (as Jesus) slept.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 12/30/2005 1:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Zach,
Sahid said...
Zach: I think that having ability is a defining quality of "strength" especially if we use the word "omnipotence."
But "dynamic" may not explain dynamis! Many is the time I have heard preachers say dynamis means "dynamite". But it doesn't, the derived word does not explain the root word, so we need to consult the Greek (and not even the Latin) dictionary:
"(1) as able to produce a strong effect power, might, strength (AC 1.8), opposite weakness; plural, as universal or supernatural rulers powers (MT 24.29); (2) as capacity for something ability, capability (2C 8.3); (3) as ability to communicate through language meaning, force (1C 14.11); (4) as supernatural manifestations of power miracle, wonder, powerful deed (HE 2.4); (5) as the value and usefulness of money wealth, resources, riches (RV 18.3)" (Friberg Lexicon)
Sahid said...
If God can change the past, then it's not really the past. It would be the apparent past to us. God can't change the past, not because he's weak, but for the same reason that he can't make a rectangular football, it's nonsense.
To us, maybe! But do we need to say it's impossible for God? I don't think changing the past introduces any logical contradictions.
various folks said...
Lee: so then Jesus may have meant some other type of blindness than unintentional sin. I expect that he did, for the opposite of blindness is someone claiming to see! Rather than really seeing. So maybe blindness is actually a recognition of our true condition, as in Laodicea, in Rev. 3:14-18.
Zach: Jesus said that if they were blind they would not be guilty.
Yes, so then "blind" would be recognizing helplessness, and coming to God, and not unintentional sin, and thus Leviticus could then also be correct.
Sahid said...
If he caused it, he is responsible.
Yes, I agree.
Sahid said...
... when you start off saying that God is by definition good, of course that will also be your conclusion no matter what he actually does.
Actually, I don't believe that God is by definition good! It could have been otherwise...
Psalm 136:1 Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good.
Sahid said...
You can even believe what the Torah says about God ordering genocide and call it good, just like I could look at a photo of the earth taken from space and still call it flat.
Or we could try and understand how God could give such an order in his goodness. Do not all men die? That is more than making all of one nation die, I would say. Here is more discussion from me on this.
Sahid said...
I think a better approach is to suspend judgement, look at the evidence, and then come to conclusions. We shouldn't make up a conclusion and then interpret the evidence to fit.
Agreed again.
Sahid said...
If I kill one evil man to save one million, I've served the higher good, but killing is still bad.
In every instance? That would be my question here, would eternal life here on earth as it is now be the highest good?
Job 7:16 I despise my life; I would not live forever. Let me alone; my days have no meaning.
various folks said...
Lee: No, because his intent and motive was quite different. The motive and intent is what is critical, you accidently trip me up, my anger subsides when you tell me it was an accident, you just try and trip me up, my anger will continue, even if your attempt failed.
Zach: That's not what you said before. ""If a person sins and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD's commands, even though he does not know it, he is guilty and will be held responsible." Remember? Motivation doesn't matter. Or does it?
That's a good point, I would say that doing a really sinful deed implies a sin nature in the heart, that an unintentional sin brings guilt to men because if they were really holy, they would not have sinned even unintentionally, as in heaven, there will be no sin there, intentional or unintentional.
various folks said...
Lee: God being a Trinity gets around these difficulties, I think, since "God" means all three persons. The "Jesus Only" people would have a difficulty here, though.
Zach: So, when you say God you mean "God the Father and not Jesus or the Spirit"?
No, I mean the being that is all three persons. Just as a court of law does not say only a person's hand did a deed, they say the whole person did it, though only the hand may have moved.
Sahid said...
But Jesus did sleep. When he did it he was God (as he always was). So God did sleep, properly speaking. God was also crucified, died, and was buried, because Jesus was fully God.
But God the Father and God the Spirit did not sleep, nor was the Father dying on the cross, nor was the Spirit raised from the dead.
various folks said...
Lee: Jesus was worshipped in his incarnation, in his weakness, implying that the essential attributes of divinity are other than just complete power.
Zach: Jesus also had fingernails in his incarnation. Does that make fingernails an necessary attribute of God? Not every attribute of Jesus is a necessary attribute of God.
I agree, that is what I was trying to say...
Sahid said...
Only ultimate power is necessary to the term "God" as it is commonly and meaningfully used (I might be wrong, but I'm sticking to this for now).
Well, then why was Jesus worshipped, with his approval, if on earth he did not have ultimate power?
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."
Implying that it was not his at some time before.
various folks said...
Lee: And then we have to ask how far this weakness extends, as part of God’s nature, where can we say we must stop? I can see no indication of a limit.
Zach: Nope, no limit. "Even to death on a cross."
Then God might be weaker than we are?
various folks said...
Lee: I agree, but I would consider that more a limitation to logic, which doesn’t seem to essentially limit God.
Zach: So, if God is illogical, why bother believing anything? The God of the Bible brought order out of chaos.
No, I meant that God has to operate within the bounds of logic, as you also were arguing for previously.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 12/30/2005 7:27:51 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/30/2005 4:35 PM (GMT -6) | | | Peanut gallery time, meaning. . .I'm not connecting to the discussion, but just interjecting at a point. Hope that's OK.
Sahid said...
But Jesus did sleep. When he did it he was God (as he always was). So God did sleep, properly speaking. God was also crucified, died, and was buried, because Jesus was fully God.
Lee said...
But God the Father and God the Spirit did not sleep, nor was the Father dying on the cross, nor was the Spirit raised from the dead.
PoW offers...
A famous historical phrase is "One of the holy Trinity suffered."
. . . But on Calvary it was not a nature who suffered, but a person. And the Theopaschite formula draws us back to reflect on Who that person is - the Logos, God the Son and Word of God, known to us in His humanity as Jesus of Nazareth. It is the Word of God Who suffers, impassible in His deity, he has put on our humanity, and lives, suffers and dies with us as one of us to raise us with Him.
And then history has more to teach too:
[Confusingly, there exists also a Theopaschite Heresy, namely the belief that on Calvary one of the Trinity suffered as God. This was a view upheld by a handful of extreme Monophysite theologians, who, unlike most of those labelled with that name, denied the humanity of Christ. Most of the leading theologians of the Monophysite tradition share with Chalcedonian Orthodox the crucial doctrine that Christ is consubstantial with us in His humanity and consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit in His deity.]
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/30/2005 3:45:57 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:37 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 |
|
|