 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > God's Character | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Element
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2005
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 9/13/2005 12:45 PM (GMT -6) |   |
That's just the thing--I don't believe any degree of selfish motivation is consistent with true benevolence; the two concepts are exact opposites. 1 Cor. 13. True love seeks not its own. I unequivocally affirm my absolute unworthiness to ever enter God's heaven or to receive anything good from His hand, no matter how much good I may ever be able to do. If I end up in hell, it will be only what I deserve.
Well, then you've just stumbled upon a glaring contradiction.....because according to the Bible, God chooses to save people because he wants them for his own fellowship and to give Him glory for all eternity. The God you are told to emulate is extremely self-consumed and even obsessed with receiving self-glory from humans. You certainly consider God to be loving and benevolent, despite the fact that He selfishly demands glory and worship after he saves you. So didn't God save you for His own selfish purposes, and not because of "love"? This would have to be the case if what you said above is true. (that acts of love can contain no selfish motive whatsoever)
Furthermore, why do you think you are so unworthy? God obviously didn't feel the same way about you or else he wouldn't have sent His proverbial son to die for you. To be honest, it is these forms of negative self-concepts that began to repel me from fundamentalist Christianity. Life is too short to be wasted on constant self-loathing, self-hatred, guilty, shame, and endless forgiveness-begging. Who in their right mind would want to live like that? None of those things contribute to positive states of mental health. I believe God wants us to live our lives in a state of mental health, to be happy, to enjoy life, to walk in love, etc....and that begins with us having healthy, positive self-concepts.
~Element~Post Edited (Element) : 9/13/2005 12:50:42 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/13/2005 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/13/2005 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Element said...
Well, then you've just stumbled upon a glaring contradiction.....because according to the Bible, God chooses to save people because he wants them for his own fellowship and to give Him glory for all eternity. The God you are told to emulate is extremely self-consumed and even obsessed with receiving self-glory from humans. You certainly consider God to be loving and benevolent, despite the fact that He selfishly demands glory and worship after he saves you. So didn't God save you for His own selfish purposes, and not because of "love"? This would have to be the case if what you said above is true. (that acts of love can contain no selfish motive whatsoever)
God's will to save people and bring them into fellowship with Himself is the highest good of all. It is not necessarily selfish, inasmuch as it desires and acts towards the highest good of ALL. .
FWIW, it is simply not the case that I am forever stuck in self-hatred, guilt, shame, etc., as I believe all people (including myself) have the capacity for change, the capacity to respond to God, and to please Him.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Element
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2005
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 9/13/2005 3:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
A couple quick points....
"I also have never once said "truth can only be found in the Bible.""
--Well if you reject any and all ideas that contradict the Bible, then isn't it the same as believing the Bible is the only source of truth?
"I'm simply saying I could never deserve God's grace. That's why it's called grace."
---I understand. You think it is a "grace" that God saves you from his own torture. I'm just saying that an act of refraining from ETERNALLY TORTURING someone does not seem like a special "grace" to me, but more like a morally correct state of NOT being a sadistic barbarian.
"FWIW, it is simply not the case that I am forever stuck in self-hatred, guilt, shame, etc., as I believe all people (including myself) have the capacity for change, the capacity to respond to God, and to please Him."
---Well, when you say things like - no matter how much good you do you still "deserve" to be tortured forever.....It certainly sends a message of self-loathing, no? Don't most Christians live in some form of shame, regret, and self-loathing over their daily "sins"? Always feeling bad about themselves and needing to ask God for forgiveness?
~Element~Post Edited (Element) : 9/13/2005 3:57:51 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/13/2005 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Element,
As it is clear at this point that you deny the authority of the Bible, it is clear at least to me that this conversation is at a standstill, and necessarily so. Thus, I really see no good reason to continue at this point. I will continue to "thump" the Bible, and you will continue to mock its claims, which is fine if that's what you want to do, but I just don't have any interest in that.
(FWIW, I affirm what is known of as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, not sola scriptura per se).
Blessings,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 9/13/2005 3:57:54 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Element
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2005
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 9/13/2005 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE,
Actually, all I have done up to this point is taken the things you've said and applied common sense. I have not disrespected your faith; I've merely evaluated it under the light of logic and rationality. Yes, it is true that I believe eternal torment is "barbaric" and/or "sadistic". That is not meant as a "bash" or insult on your beliefs, its merely an expression of my feelings about those particular concepts.
What is strange is you say the Bible is not the only source of truth, but on the other hand, you say suddenly there is no longer a basis for discussion if I do not accept the authority of the Bible,. That seems like a conflicted message. If there is truth outside of the Bible, then you and I should have plenty of grounds for discussion, yes? Whatever you decide is fine with me. Personally I see this as a concession that you have no ability to rationally defend certain aspects of your faith and are therefore running off. If you ever change your mind and want to revisit these issues, I'll be here.
Blessings,
Brandon
~Element~ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/13/2005 4:28 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Element,
with all due respect, I'm still waiting for your response to my last post.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/13/2005 5:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Element.
Meph here. Just sayin' "whussup" and welcome to the board. 
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Element
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2005
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 9/13/2005 5:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey meph, good to see ya!
~Element~
"The miracle is not to fly through the air, or to walk on the water:
but to walk on the earth." - Chinese Proverb | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/13/2005 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | |
Element said...
My theology is different than your's....
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but you seemed to have piecemealed the Bible into some of your own theology, is that correct?
Element said...
The idea that - God gets mad, so something must get killed in order to satisfy His rage, is an archaic theology.
Would you please quote some passages that support your claim?
Element said...
The God that I believe in is a bit more advanced than that and resolves problems a bit more rationally. What influences have you integrated into your faith that characterizes this "more advanced" god of yours?
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/13/2005 6:28:22 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 9/13/2005 10:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Element said...
JEE,
Actually, all I have done up to this point is taken the things you've said and applied common sense. I have not disrespected your faith; I've merely evaluated it under the light of logic and rationality. Yes, it is true that I believe eternal torment is "barbaric" and/or "sadistic". That is not meant as a "bash" or insult on your beliefs, its merely an expression of my feelings about those particular concepts.
What is strange is you say the Bible is not the only source of truth, but on the other hand, you say suddenly there is no longer a basis for discussion if I do not accept the authority of the Bible,. That seems like a conflicted message. If there is truth outside of the Bible, then you and I should have plenty of grounds for discussion, yes? Whatever you decide is fine with me. Personally I see this as a concession that you have no ability to rationally defend certain aspects of your faith and are therefore running off. If you ever change your mind and want to revisit these issues, I'll be here.
Blessings,
Brandon
Affirming as I do the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of scripture, Reason, Tradition & Experience definitely does NOT mean I am "conflicted," as you say, with regard to the issue of the Bible's authority. I trust you are fully capable of looking into the paradigm known of as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, and so there is really no need for me to try to instruct you on that.
By the way, I do not affirm the Anselmian "satisfaction of wrath" view of the atonement, so it is not the case that I affirm God's wrath had to be somehow appeased in order that we could be forgiven. To the contrary, I affirm the Moral Gov't view of the atonement, which does not posit the satisfaction of wrath per se.
I started responding in this thread simply to address the basic issue that there is in fact copious biblical precedent for the idea that Katrina could be the manifest judgment of God, which is perhaps the one thing I see Element and I agree on. Okey-dokey. I'm done now,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 9/14/2005 1:50:48 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Element
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2005
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 9/14/2005 3:04 PM (GMT -6) | |
sparknheart said...
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but you seemed to have piecemealed the Bible into some of your own theology, is that correct? .....What influences have you integrated into your faith that characterizes this "more advanced" god of yours?
My theology is mostly influenced by the state of reality, and the general laws of the universe. In other words, I base my theology largely on how the world works, natural history, cosmology, physics, and a plethora of other verified aspects of existence. There may be some aspects of my theology that also correlate to Biblical concepts, but I do not know what they are off the top of my head. If there are any similarities, they are minor, and probably correlate to other religion gods as well.
sparknheart said...
Would you please quote some passages that support your claim?
There are numerous incidences throughout the Bible where God gets angry because of sinful behavior and lashs out some form of punishment. Just click on your cyber-bible and do a search on "wrath" or "wrath of God" and see how many passages come up. And in regards to God's "requirement" for blood killings, the old testament's system of animal sacrifice is what I am referring to. Under the old covenant, the Hebrews were required to sacrifice animals in order to appease God's requirement for atonement. Surely you don't need me to quote specific verses to verify such basic facts of Biblical theology.
~Element~
"The miracle is not to fly through the air, or to walk on the water:
but to walk on the earth." - Chinese Proverb | | Back to Top | | |
|
Element
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2005
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 9/14/2005 3:16 PM (GMT -6) | |
Violin for God said...
It seems that you have a lot of misunderstandings about what we believe. I can see why... there are a lot of people who hold the same assumptions about Christianity as you do.
I think that is highly unlikely considering my questions/arguments were derived as a result of 13 years of my active involvement in Christian apologetics.
Violin for God said...
Would you be interested in re-evaluating your understandings about what we believe?
Absolutely.
Violin for God said...
Are you interested in these topics - one at a time of course - ?
Sure....of the three you mentioned, "What is God" sounds like the best topic to start with. Let me begin by affirming that I consider all God concepts to be matters of faith, so I am not looking for anyone to "prove" their version of God is "true", since that is not even possible. Rather, I evaluate all God concepts based on these 4 merits:
a) Is it a theology that contains self-contradicting attributes?
b) Is it a theology that has probablistic value?
c) Is it a theology that is logically sound
d) Is it a theology that is in harmony with the natural universe (creation)
~Element~
"The miracle is not to fly through the air, or to walk on the water:
but to walk on the earth." - Chinese ProverbPost Edited (Element) : 9/14/2005 3:23:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/14/2005 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, great. This sounds like a great place to start. My main approach in theology is pretty similar to your approach it seems. Basically (as I’ve stated on another thread), if I have religions x, y, and z to choose from, I look at the religions themselves and weed out the ones that simply have too many contradictions logically-speaking or seem to be at odds with reality as I see it.
It seems that you already agree that there is one God, however that pans out… not a God-head like some sort of council that the Mormons believe in where they believe that there are multiple “gods” in a God-head. Am I right about that? Or do you believe there are multiple gods?
If you believe there is just one God, then how about we dive into the issue of omnipotence? If God is omnipotent, what does this entail? We often hear “all things are possible with God”. I don’t agree with this sentence; it’s not complete. Critics also present the counter-argument “Then can God make a rock so big that He can’t lift it?” So here's a question I'd like to ask you to see where you stand on these issues as well: (Given that there is only one God), is God omnipotent? (Feel free to spell out what omnipotence is if I miss anything.)
Here is what I say about the “all things are possible with God” statement: All things are possible with God as long as it doesn’t logically contradict itself or go against God’s essential nature. So my answer to the counter-argument is, “No, God can’t because either with the creating or the lifting, it contradicts the nature of being omnipotent. It’s also a logical-impossibility statement in relation to omnipotence.” So that goes with other statements such as creating a square circle, God making Himself not exist, etc. All those concepts contradict logically. Do you think this may be correct or are there problems you see with this?
Just a quick note, I’m not always clear with what I write, so that’s why I’d want to stay away from twisting-words-around games. If anything, this is just to get me to think about my thinking as well. So later in the conversation, I may re-evaluate my position as well.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Element
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2005
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 9/14/2005 8:07 PM (GMT -6) | | | VFG,
You are correct that I am monotheistic. I believe there is one entity/power/person that I classify as "God". At this point in time, the only attributes my faith ascribes to God are as follows:
1) Panetheism - Everything in creation is a sacred expression of God, and in this way, a part of him. (his thoughts, his ideas, his image, etc.)
2) Omni-presence - God is the force that binds all things together; every atom in the universe. This is the way God is interconnected with all His Creation.
3) Personal - God is a personal identity that is interconnected with Creation, but also unique and separate from Creation. How that existence plays out is steeped in mystery, and I fully affirm that some aspects of God are a mystery.
4) Tolerance - I believe God is perfectly tolerant and accepting of all aspects of His Creation. All things exist exactly as he intended/designed them to exist.
5) Unconditional Love - I believe God understands that we are dependent, sinful, weak, and fragile....and even designed us to be this way so that we could learn the glory of overcoming these conditions. He loves us just as we are. He loves us despite our triumphs and failures.
Thats basically it, in a nutshell. There are finer points of my theology but the five things listed above constitute the essential attributes. I don't think much about Omnipotence, because it seems like a very fuzzy concept to me. I think God has quite a bit of power, I just don't see any reason to conclude that His power has "no limit", or if it did that we would be able to understand what that even means.
Based on the five attributes I described above, you can see why I would have some problems with the concepts of the Biblical God. And believe me, there are MANY problems with traditional descriptions of the Biblical God, which I'm sure we willl get into as we go
Thanks in advance for discussing these issues with me.
"The miracle is not to fly through the air, or to walk on the water:
but to walk on the earth." - Chinese ProverbPost Edited (Element) : 9/14/2005 8:18:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/15/2005 12:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Element,
I’m glad that we can discuss these issues on an amicable level. If anything, this will hopefully be an enlightening discussion. I actually had a few discussions with someone about Panentheism. I hadn’t heard of it before that. I do have some questions about Panentheism, so perhaps after we discuss Christian theology we can discuss that a bit.
Ok. Let’s just discuss the pros and cons of the Christian paradigm for now, though. (I agree, there are some popular interpretations among Christians about Christianity that are incorrect.)
What do you think of my explanation of God (sans creation)? I did state that there are limits to God’s power, specifically that He can’t do anything that conflicts with His essential nature (being omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnitemporal) or anything that logically contradicts itself. Do you see any glaring problems with what I explained so far?
(BTW, if you post anything somewhat long, do it in Microsoft Word first and then transfer it to the reply window on this thread. Sometimes it the transmission gets jammed and then you’ll have to start over.)
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/15/2005 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | | Element, it always nice to see another person who's not afraid to think for him/herself. So, props on that. It's the pantheism that gets me. If we combine that attribute with any of the last three, I see difficult issues.
I am personal. My toenail is not. Technically and properly speaking, I am not my toenail. "I" am my mind/soul/spirit/conscience/whatever. (Ignoring for now that I believe the human person is an interconnected mix of physical and metaphysical) To identify a rock with a personal God is a stretch. I think Panentheism fits much better (but there's a typo in your post, so maybe that's what you meant.) Panentheism is close enough to what I believe that I wouldn't put up much of a fuss with it.
Tolenance and love hit the same snag. How can my intolerance be an expression of God's tolerance? How can my sinful hatred of my friend be an expression of God's love?
Again, you might be talking about Panentheism. If so, I'll agree with the term and just whine about your defintion of it.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Element
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2005
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 9/16/2005 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | VFG,
"I did state that there are limits to God’s power, specifically that He can’t do anything that conflicts with His essential nature (being omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnitemporal) or anything that logically contradicts itself. Do you see any glaring problems with what I explained so far?"
The only potential problem I see with your explanation on this is.....what we understand as "logical" is directly linked to our knowledge. Logic is a derivitive of knowledge, and since our knowledge is very limited (when compared to all possible knowledge in the universe) it follows that our logic is equally as limited. In other words, perhaps there is some dimension where a "square circle" is possible, we just don't know it yet.
However, I don't see this consideration being a legitimate problem, practically speaking, because we can't base our theories on what we don't know, only on what we DO know. So since our current knowledge/logic is all we've got, we must abide by it's dictations.
~Element~
"The miracle is not to fly through the air, or to walk on the water:
but to walk on the earth." - Chinese ProverbPost Edited (Element) : 9/16/2005 4:29:30 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Element
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2005
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 9/16/2005 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid,
"I am personal. My toenail is not. Technically and properly speaking, I am not my toenail. "I" am my mind/soul/spirit/conscience/whatever. (Ignoring for now that I believe the human person is an interconnected mix of physical and metaphysical) To identify a rock with a personal God is a stretch. I think Panentheism fits much better (but there's a typo in your post, so maybe that's what you meant.) Panentheism is close enough to what I believe that I wouldn't put up much of a fuss with it."
Yes, it was panentheism that I was referring to in my post. I don't believe we are "God", rather, that we are a PART of God, much like your toenail is a part of your body.
"Tolenance and love hit the same snag. How can my intolerance be an expression of God's tolerance? How can my sinful hatred of my friend be an expression of God's love?"
It wouldn't be. We have free will which allows us to violate our interconnectedness with God. All acts of sin/hatred are violations of our union with God and interconnection with eachother.
~Element~
"The miracle is not to fly through the air, or to walk on the water:
but to walk on the earth." - Chinese ProverbPost Edited (Element) : 9/16/2005 12:27:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 86 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:29 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 |
|
|