 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Prove GOD! | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/21/2006 10:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | Let this be stated, Tom.
You and I are more "process" than we are "Orthodox" when it comes to the way we do theology. Meaning the same kind of impassess that process theologians have from Orthodox theologians...are likely going to be based on the same kind of CONCEPTUALIZATION ASSUMPTIONS involved in that discussion.
You and I believe that divine revelation via God's contingent expression can actually render imperfectly apprended, but genuinely representative "information" about God's ad intra existence. We are REALISTS in a serious sense.
POW and Orthodoxy doesn't. They don't believe it's possible for us to know God's ad intra. We can ONLY know God in his "energies" Hence the "essence" and "energies" thing.
This is a SIGNIFICANT place to be on different pages.
So...just so that's understood.
Now...
Tom. Your ideas are interesting. I agree with them all.
So...I'm curious...
What are the implications of your ideas for biblical interpretation?
There seem to be some interesting implications.
you knew I HAD to do it...heh
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/21/2006 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I’m not suggesting two entirely distinct realms or dimensions that have nothing to do with one another.
PoW: I think we agree there, but have some differences too.
.
Meph was _mostly_ correct. 
.
A comment that I'd like to make -- and direct your attention to what I said about Adam's sacramental job -- is that words and language and the creation of symbols has a SACRAMENTAL role as eucharist, task and calling.
That is important.
Perhaps add that to your distinctions to bring them closer together!
Why? Because the sacramental role as eucharist, task and calling FOR ALL THINGS pre-exists their own existence.
Beer too.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 9/21/2006 10:59:04 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/21/2006 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi-
Off the top of my head without thinking through things much…
I think in terms of revealing a PERSON, ultimately only the PERSON can do that fully. No BOOK can reveal a PERSON the way that PERSON can reveal him/herself. The revelation itself would have to BE a person. So in terms of revelation, GOD reveals GOD better than any BOOK can reveal GOD even if God writes that book on tablets of gold in heaven without the help of human authors and lowers it down to earth in plain view of the entire human race. It would still necessarily fall short since the language would have to be OUR language, and that would necessarily limit any meaningful communication to analogies drawn from OUR experience. That’s what OUR language is. That’s what God has to work with, even if he’s writing on gold in heaven.
What God did (I think) is say, “Enough of getting my point across through the prophets [Heb. 1.1]. That has always worked as well as I wished. I’ll do this myself!” and then lowers GODSELF down to earth in plain view.
Scripture, since it's language, is irreducibly MAP. It cannot be the TERRITORY itself. But just as in our language of "I love you" I offer the territory of my SELF to be experienced in a way that transcends the words (MAP) I speak, so in the language of Scripture, our inspired telling of the story, God offers the territory of himself to us.
So God showed up personally in Christ to do what no linguistic description could do: be territory among us, be Emmanuel. This means that for those who lived with Christ, their beliefs in (their ‘language’ about) Christ aren’t themselves dependent upon someone else’s story (at least not the way ours are). They ‘saw’ and ‘touched’ (1Jo. 1) ‘that which they proclaim’ to us. So they are different from us in this. We don’t see and touch what they saw and touched. All we have is their story. The historical (personal) revelation of the PERSON has become part OF the story. But that still leaves us with a MAP. It sucks.
So we’re back to square one—having to refer to the MAP of their story to find our way in spite of the fact that GOD showed up to do his own revealing of his SELF to us. But it’s a story that gets us to the same personal territory. Blessed are you who se and believe, but MORE blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. Hmmm.
How all this figures into interpreting the Bible, Mephi, I’ll let you say! It seems that we have to recognize the distinction between Scripture as MAP and God as TERRITORY. So there will be limitations to a BOOK we should just admit right up front. MAPS, even the best possible MAPS, still do what they do within the limitations of MAPNESS. Those limitations are why God showed up to reveal himSELF in the first place. So God is in the story speaking through the experience and words of human authors. But I can't see how SOMETHING of the limitations of human beings doesn't get written onto the MAP. And I’m sure that’s where YOU come in! We can only test their claims pragmatically and cling to the truth-territory we discover. There’s nothing else we can do. This is why the inerrancy debate is beside the point.
Was that vague enough for you? 
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/21/2006 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: "Scripture, since it's language, is irreducibly MAP. It cannot be the TERRITORY itself."
Bro: And you are *not* a nominalist? A little bit?
Touche'
I get it. Hence, the energies thing. If divine revelation in God's contingent expression is "irreducibly MAP", then that is de facto saying that received divine revelation CANNOT EVER be territory.
Divine revelation (map) can be INEXTRICABLY RELATED to God (territory) in a relation of correspondence, but it can never be considered genuine EXPERIENCE of God (territory). In other words, interpretations of divine/human interaction (which are all we can accomplish in Scriptural hermeneutics) are ALWAYS map. Yes, God can enact an EXPERIENCE of God using Scripture...using Scripture as a portal to God. But the human relation to Scripture is one as to a MAP.
We can ONLY experience God through his "energies". We can never DIRECTLY experience God's essence.
Damn. 
Is this what you've (and the Orthodox theologians) been saying, POW?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/21/2006 8:36:51 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/21/2006 8:49 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Tom: "Scripture, since it's language, is irreducibly MAP. It cannot be the TERRITORY itself."
Bro: And you are *not* a nominalist? A little bit?
Touche'
I get it. Hence, the energies thing. If divine revelation in God's contingent expression is "irreducibly MAP", then that is de facto saying that received divine revelation CANNOT EVER be territory.
Divine revelation (map) can be INEXTRICABLY RELATED to God (territory) in a relation of correspondence, but it can never be considered genuine EXPERIENCE of God (territory). In other words, interpretations of divine/human interaction (which are all we can accomplish in Scriptural hermeneutics) are ALWAYS map. Yes, God can enact an EXPERIENCE of God using Scripture...using Scripture as a portal to God. But the human relation to Scripture is one as to a MAP.
We can ONLY experience God through his "energies". We can never DIRECTLY experience God's essence.
Damn.
Is this what you've (and the Orthodox theologians) been saying, POW?
I'm often on-guard when you write about essence and energies. It might help if you review the historical context where Palamas and Barlaam were at it. Basil made the same distinction--its an accurate distinction--but the Palamite context helps. Major point is that the exxence/energies distinction is NOT a loss, but is a significant GAIN. God IS known in his energies, and His energies are divine and uncreated. The contrasting second-best of Barlaam was a scholasticisation of Thomas that said we only knew God intellectually, but could know God in full. Palamas said we don't fully know God due to our limits, but do truly know God IN His energies/powers/glory. And what we know is not just information but God's indwelling.
(Hope that helps. Work on it; but read first.)
=========
Two....
Meph: "...using Scripture as a portal to God. But the human relation to Scripture is one as to a MAP."
Bro: I can agree with this in certain respects at certain times -- like in exegesis. BUT, I think we will all chime in that at certain USES of Scipture the text INCARNATES the Gospel -- like those Psalms that make you just well-up and burst!!! THEN it is not just "map" but "Word!"
Right?
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/21/2006 8:55 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom: "Scripture, since it's language, is irreducibly MAP. It cannot be the TERRITORY itself."
POW: And you are *not* a nominalist? A little bit?
Tom: Not even a bit.
POW: If you say that the book is mere paper, then I'll buy in. But when the "map" ink goes on there is more happening than your descriptions recognize.
Tom: Let’s see what you see happening. You say…
POW: Think on when the Gospel is read in church. Afterwards the pastor declares "the Word of the Lord" and the rest of us say "Thanks be to God." Woltersdorff wrote a sermon series on how "scripture speaks"
Tom: What have I said that makes you think I dispute this?
POW: If "the heavens" can "declare the Glory of God" and speak, then so can Scripture.
Tom: Who are you talking to POW? Me? What's your point? Of course Scripture can declare God's glory. If you think after all I wrote that I don’t think Scripture can declare God’s glory, that God is present and available to us in the message of Scripture, then I give up. Maybe words really don’t mean anything. If you can mistake me this desperately, I'm not at all motivated to clarify my position.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 9/21/2006 9:01:11 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/21/2006 9:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
POW: Think on when the Gospel is read in church. Afterwards the pastor declares "the Word of the Lord" and the rest of us say "Thanks be to God." ...
Tom: What have I said that makes you think I dispute this?
POW: If "the heavens" can "declare the Glory of God" and speak, then so can Scripture.
Tom: What have I said that makes you think I dispute this?
PoW: Sorry. I didn't mean to make you feel misread.
Honestly, in using the two illustrations above my strategy was to say two things that everyone would gladly and whole heartedly agree with, and understand each other through. Nice strategy. But the tactic did not work to make you feel better--sorry!
But, to repeat. . .sacramentally the Gospel read and preached in the congregation of Christ's Body incarnates Christ to us by the Spirit. The "map" (a symbol) remains, but it also "is" Christ to us. Sacraments don't stop being what they are, anymore than the bread stops being bread or the wine wine; yet each also really becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord. They are not altered at the altar, but they do change to also be the medicine of immortaility. (Likewise, the humanity of Christ does not change by being the body of God.) The mystery is that change does NOT happen.
The "map" does not cease being map; but if I can overstretch the analogy -- or Jumangi it-- the map becomes the territory while not ceasing to be map.
The world and all of life are sacramental.
But not to Nominalists.
BTW -- Greg Boyd only knew one definition of "nominalism" -- and that came from modern philosophy. But the historical nominalists and nominalism are something Greg did not grasp.
Surprising but true!!!
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/21/2006 9:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Well... Maybe we are really saying the same things.... In the reconstructed trinitarian process metaphysic, God's "energies" (the interactions that occur in God's contingent expression) are JUST as divine as God's "essence" (God's essential existence ad intra). They are BOTH aspects of divine reality. Just like both the corporeal and incorporeal aspects of Christ are the ONE intensified divine contingent expression into human experience, both the contingent expression and essential existence of God is of ONE divine reality . So, just like Orthodox want to say that God is "in" God's energies such that God's energies cannot be separated from who God is...so also God is "in" God's contingent expression such that it cannot be separated from who God is. This means that the "map" created by God does INDEED have some aspect of divine reality associated with it. It is in some way "territorial"...although it's not "territory". And the MAP can be be used to encounter TERRITORY. No, human beings don't have direct access to God's ad intra. But God is "revealed" in God's communication (God's "energies"  in ways that genuinely represent what ad intra existence is. Now, unless someone wants to REALLY be a nominalist and say that God 's essential essence can be totally discontinuous with God's contingent expression...,it makes sense to say that God's contingent expression at least INDICATES what God's essential essence IS. Hmmm...
Now add "silence" to that.
I use the word "in" to refer to my viewing God's energes: "I know God IN his energies..."
But I am silent with respect to any saying that might suggest that God puts himself IN-to his energies.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/21/2006 9:36 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
But I am silent with respect to any saying that might suggest that God puts himself IN-to his energies.
That's humble of you. But what's wrong with saying that God does "put Godself into" his energies? Like God's contingent expression? Is there some real theological quandary that occurs?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/21/2006 9:39 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
Mephi: Now, unless someone wants to REALLY be a nominalist and say that God 's essential essence can be totally discontinuous with God's contingent expression...,it makes sense to say that God's contingent expression at least INDICATES what God's essential essence IS.
Tom: Right. It's a friggin REVELATION! Of course words that reveal God are going to reveal God, reveal something about God (his divinity, character, purposes, nature). Of course we'll get the "lay of the land (territory)" from a map. That's what maps do.
Whatever.
Tom The word "about" jumps out at me.
Of course I graciously accept the notion of "about" TOO.
But revelation -- like you said, in a Person -- does not need the word "about" as God is THAT close to us. Or can be.
So, once with "about " and once without.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/21/2006 9:41 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...POW: The "map" does not cease being map; but if I can overstretch the analogy -- or Jumangi it-- the map becomes the territory while not ceasing to be map.It makes more sense to me to say that the MAP is "territorial" (in that it relates meaningfully and correlatively to the TERRITORY) and creates an environment for experiencing the TERRITORY...but it's still a MAP. However, this only make sense because there is a solid epistemological link between the map and the territory. The MAP correlates with the TERRITORY enough to have a certain level of usefulness to being conducive to a "terratorial" environment. It doesn't make any sense to say that the MAP is totally discontinuous from the TERRITORY with respect to REVEALING true information about the territory.
Nice.
Now read what you wrote with the subject of "sacramental" in mind.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/21/2006 9:47 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
POW:
But I am silent with respect to any saying that might suggest that God puts himself IN-to his energies.
That's humble of you. But what's wrong with saying that God does "put Godself into" his energies? Like God's contingent expression? Is there some real theological quandary that occurs? Problem.
To my grasp, it really sounds like God is being treated as anything but "simple" in essence. Shudder! "Puts himself into" reminds me of the dancing chorus line in Flubber!
Admittedly I'm slow in following some of your new-sounding words. If I take them only like saying that God's energies reveal God in a sunset, according to my own capacity to preceive it, then I'm fine with it. But the first wind of sounding like God leaves part of himself behind sounds very un-trinitarian. Too much like the "spirit" is impersonal. Like all those sky-diety religions.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/21/2006 9:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | Subject: REVELATION IN MARRIAGE (a mystery)
Marriage reveals not only my wife (to the degree of my capacity and willingness), but also of ME. Bonded and in communion I not only grow in knowledge of that about myself openned to me before, but also MORE of me that was unknown and hidden even in plain sight is revealed.
I can hardly imagine myself before.
20 years.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nogodblog
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2006
Total Posts : 25
| Posted 9/22/2006 1:05 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB said...
Yes, NGB. Vi prefectly expressed it. What you as an atheist need to do is argue something like the following:
Premise 1: If there were a God, there would provide unambiguous scientific proof of his existence.
Premise 2: If there were a God, there would be no evil or innocent suffering in the world.
Premise 3: There is no unambiguous scientific proof for God's existence.
Premise 4: There is evil and innocent suffering in the world.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist (from P1 through P4).
NGB: TGB, in all the aruguments you do there; is glaring aspect which I have observed, that is you are pretty good at churning english words, and saying everything which has specific meaning in our world (ex: evidence) can mean something else because you think so, and above all in every answer you gave me you threaten to quit repeatedly because you dont like my repeated stressing on non-falisfiable evidence, Neverthless, I would still make a attempt to answer your premise questions, before which I would like to use this post to answer few other queires which deal with science,truth and aspects of religion.
NGB: I would say that the critical difference between religious and scientific evidence is that science grew from direct observations incrementally and so its later inferences and mathematical theories are based on and validated by the accumulated experience of nature and are thereby testable or at least falsifiable. Religion, though, deals with an ancient and unchanging mental and emotional construct. Religion did not grow incrementally but as a compilation of earlier unsubstantiated traditions. Religion is unable to meaningfully apply evidence or even recognize it largely because it is neither testable nor falsifiable. Religion also suffers in that the forms of evidence it does attempt to use are emotional and psychological and frequently contrary to the evidence provided by nature.
Anyone with sufficient resources can duplicate the subatomic particle experiments and thereby assure themselves that the particles do exist. If the experiment does NOT show the particles then science rushes to determine why and modify itself if necessary to remain consistent with reality.
Religion's only evidence is personal experience which cannot be transmitted to another person so no one can verify if anyone, say a Gospel writer, had taken a dose of happy mushrooms or had a genuine, to him, experience.
Religion, despite its claims, is not predictive. There is no way to predict the response of God to anything we do. The number of instances of the capricious nature of God is enormous. A quick example: God demands a sacrifice from Abraham then says it was just a test, so don't bother. God promises death in a day to a guy and then lets the victim live another 900 years or so.
In short, science is a group enterprise that is progressive and self-correcting through accumulation of verifiable evidence. Religion is an individual mental process that, because of its presumed ultimate truth, cannot progress, its internal experiential evidence cannot be shared or replicated and its many errors (unavoidable in a human process) cannot be repaired.
The difference here is very obvious: those scientists use the best possible and most responsible research methodology to arrive what they would still call a 'hypothesis' or a 'theory'. They wouldn't claim 'truth' like so many theists do. Most theists have no clue what the correct meaning is of the word 'truth'. If they call the elements of their religion 'belief' or a 'thesis' that would be ok, but instead they insist 'truth'. Also, if scientists don't know the answer, or can't find the explanation or reason for a particular event, they simply, and honestly suspend conclusion. Theists employ a primitive reflex of immediately attribute it to 'god/s'.
The scientist also follow a philosophy of 'liberal scientific method', meaning that they would replace old findings with new discoveries, given the correct research methodology was followed. Theists refuse to accept new, contemporary findings, research (especially in archeology), despite that the acadmenics and researchers in those fields have followed the correct accepted methodology of epistimology.
The basic question I always have is: what method (if any) was used by the theist to verify the elements of their 'belief'. Surely, not to do this minimum is the height of intellectual dishonesty. It is not so much a question of atheists claiming a high standard of proof, it is the alarming behaviour of theists to hold their beliefs (claimed truth) up to no standard of proof. At all.
NGB: Coming to your premises I have the following to say:
The first problem with this formulation is that mischaracterizes the atheist position. The big obvious red flag waves over the perennially misused term "proof" in the first and third premise. The first two premises also presume conclusions within themselves that are not logically valid. The second big obvious red flag is use of the grossly undefined term "God". So, let's rephrase this argument in what I think is more accurate (and honest) form.
Premise 1: The existence of an agent is established by the appearance of some effect by that agent on an observable system. There is, to date, no recorded evidence of an effect of any supernatural influence on a natural system.
Conclusion 1. There is no reason to suspect that a supernatural agent exists.
Premise 2: Evil and suffering, as defined with respect to an all-encompassing, all-powerful and all-good supernatural agent would be impossible. Evil and suffering are known to exist in the world.
Conclusion 2. While some unknown supernatural agent might exist, the one designated as God with specific identifiable attributes cannot.
So try to answer me on the above (honestly) and then we will take it up from there.Post Edited (nogodblog) : 9/22/2006 1:09:45 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/22/2006 6:16 AM (GMT -6) | | POW:
But, to repeat. . .sacramentally the Gospel read and preached in the congregation of Christ's Body incarnates Christ to us by the Spirit. The "map" (a symbol) remains, but it also "is" Christ to us. Sacraments don't stop being what they are, anymore than the bread stops being bread or the wine wine; yet each also really becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord. They are not altered at the altar, but they do change to also be the medicine of immortaility. (Likewise, the humanity of Christ does not change by being the body of God.) The mystery is that change does NOT happen.
The "map" does not cease being map; but if I can overstretch the analogy -- or Jumangi it-- the map becomes the territory while not ceasing to be map.
The world and all of life are sacramental.
I see what you are saying. Great point, yo!
What would happen if we actually saw ourselves as a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD of people whose main job was to reverence and reveal the glory of God in ourselves...via the sacramental-ization of all of life?
Wouldn't that be cool?
Yeah...
Just figured I'd say this, POW. I really enjoy dialogue with you on this stuff. Real iron-sharpening-iron stuff, man. Thanks!
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/22/2006 6:26 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/22/2006 6:41 AM (GMT -6) | | To NGB: Read David Bently Hart's book on the sunami.
You don't like false representation of your position (good) and shouldn't want others to see theirs misrepresented either.
As to science, THAT is what the "life in Christ" is about. Centuries of emperical experiementation on the project of purifying the soul.
As to ethics, I think you presented far to simple, and anticeptic an argument. You didn't represent the reality on the ground! Your illustration only had God as an actor, and sole responsible party.
Arguably EVERYONE has four questions they need answered. Atheist, Budist, Materialis, Christian...same four questions.
1. Who am I?
2. What is this?
3. What went wrong?
4. What can be done about it?
I felt like you left the first three out, in your trial of God's goodness.
But given that there ARE problems in the world, should we then think that the answers are going to be simple?
And given the first -- "Who am I" -- should we ourselves be left out of the equation.
The ONLY basis the Bible claims that someone could reasonably say that God does not exist is if people look at his servants and don't see Love in them. That's biblical.
I just mediated an arguement over breakfast of an wigth grader and a sophmore. Your arguements as presented were far to simplistic -- compared to a junior higher's situation. (meant half in humour)
Have to go teach art at a special ed. school now.
See you, NGB.
If you want to discuss Hart, tell me.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
| 165 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:56 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 |
|
|