 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Carlie was murdered--Where was God? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/10/2004 1:32 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
Selah: This leaves me with no choice but to believe that if the Father didn't step in for Carlie (and often doesn't "step in" in this world (at least in ways we hoped He would) - that it was because He couldn't. To do so would be to revoke free will. What do you think?
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
Jo-Anne,
To be honest, deep down I think I agree. The warfare view and the open view make the most sense to me. I'm with you and Tom in that God, being love, can't do not loving things etc. Where I get stuck are in the nuances of Mephi's thoughts  so, don't worry, I'll work it all out.
Oh, and I also think you are a nice addition to this website 
Blessings and love,
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 2/10/2004 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | moon river jquote:
My response to "Why does it all have to play out?" is that it is His desire, His longing, that none should perish and that He will tarry as long as possible so that as many as possible will know Him and because He wanted us to genuinely choose and genuinely love - it has to "play out."
I agree. God sure is patient! That is what I was trying to convey by a post I made regarding the wheat and the tares.
Matthew 13: 24 - 30, 37 - 39
24 - 30 Jesus told this story: "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a farmer who planted good seed in his field. But that night as everyone slept, his enemy came and planted weeds among the wheat. When the crop began to grow and produce grain, the weeds also grew. The farmer's servants came and told him, 'Sir, the field where you planted that good seed is full of weeds!'
'An enemy has done it!' the farmer exclaimed.
'Shall we pull out the weeds?' they asked.
He replied, 'No, you'll hurt the wheat if you do. Let both grow together until the harvest. Then I will tell the harvesters to sort out the weeds and burn them and to put the wheat in the barn.'"
37 - 39 "All right," he said. "I, the Son of Man, am the farmer who plants the good seed. The field is the world, and the good seed represents the people of the Kingdom. The weeds are the people who belong to the evil one. The enemy who planted the weeds among the wheat is the Devil."
I interpret this story to indicate that God is ONLY that which is good. When evil happens in this world God has NO part in it -- God did NOT plan it. Evil comes from the enemy. God does NOT will it but rather works with what happens and works it for good. Sometimes God's plan A for us is stolen from us by the enemy hence God then has to move us to plan B,C,D. God could have the evil taken out right now yet does not because the field is not quite ready for the harvesting. The reality is we cannot escape evil while we are part of this world and bad things happen to good people. Our faith must be rooted deep in the truth that God is good ALL the time.
There is more to our journey than the circumstances, than the pain, than the tragedy there is the hope and assurance that we will win the race. All the saints who had to suffer persecution while maintaining their faith surely knew there was more. The love that is demonstrated by those who we view as the most unfortunate in poverty stricken countries must know this reality too.
We press on toward the prize. The battle is the Lord's.  The joy comes in the morning.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 2/10/2004 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB quote:
Is God helpless? Sometimes yes. God tells us so. God looked for somebody to stand in the gap so he wouldn't have to destroy people. He couldn't find anybody, so judgment suffering and pain (judgment) was the result. Interesting. This seems to be exactly the sort of thing Mephi wants to discout in positing an unrevealed higher purpose beyond love and goodness that requires the evil in question. But God simply says, "The good I wanted to do was not possible because people tied my hands."
Something along the same lines that Mephi had said to me on Doc's prayer request thread was:
Mephi quote:
Quest, let's say life IS meaningless. Just for the sake of argument. Let's say that there IS no afterlife. No big reckoning of good and evil. Let's say that gratuitous evil just IS...along with all the other warfare muckity muck. Why NOT spend the meaningless time that we have left manifesting what the Reign of a loving, yet self-limited (read: omnipotent) God WOULD look like? Surely that's at least as much an alternative as spending all of our time watching "American Idol" or "The Simple Life"...right? Life sucks, but it's beautiful, too. Let's love radically and fight the night until we die. Ain't nothin' better to do...right?
We need to stand in the gap. We need to offer that hope to a heart that has lost hope. We need to take up our crosses daily and follow Christ. When we do if for the least of our brothers or sisters we have done it for Him.
WHERE WAS GOD? God is right in the hearts of those who choose to follow: To offer love where there is hate. To offer hope where there is despair. To offer peace where there is hatred.....
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 2/10/2004 10:41 PM (GMT -6) | | The following is an excerpt of Finney from the "Oberlin Evangelist" magazine, 1840. In this, Finney draws the distinction of what God can and cannot do wisely. Though Finney believed in the "Eternal Now" view of omniscience, he very emphatically believed in (libertarian) free will, and as such, his views on this particular subject seem pertinent to the discussion of theodicy.
(Begin Quote)
God's government implies in man the power to will, or not to will;--to will right, or to will wrong;--to choose or to refuse the great good which Jehovah promises. It also implies intelligence. The beings to whom law is addressed are capable of understanding it. They have also, as I have said, a conscience, by which they can appreciate and must affirm its obligations.
You need to distinguish broadly between the influence of motive on mind and of mechanical force upon matter. The former implies voluntariness; the latter does not. The former is adapted to mind and has no adaptation to matter; the latter equally is adapted to matter but has no possible application to mind. In God's government over the human mind, all is voluntary; nothing is coerced as by physical force. Indeed it is impossible that physical force should directly influence mind. Compulsion is precluded by the very nature of moral agency. Where compulsion begins, moral agency ends. If it were possible for God to force the will as he forces the moon along in her orbit, to do so would subvert the very idea of a moral government. Neither praise nor blame could attach to any actions of beings, so moved. Persuasion, brought to bear upon mind, is always such in its nature that it can be resisted. By the very nature of the case, God's creatures must have power to resist any amount of even his persuasion. There can be no power in heaven or earth to coerce the will, as matter is coerced. The nature of mind forbids its possibility. And if it were possible, it would still be true that in just so far as God should coerce the human will, He would cease to govern morally.
God is infinitely wise. Men can no more doubt this than they can doubt their own existence. He has infinite knowledge. He knows everything--i.e. all objects of knowledge; and knows them all perfectly. He is also infinitely good, his will being always conformed to his perfect knowledge and always controlled by infinite benevolence.
His infinite goodness implies that He does the best He can, always, and every where. In no instance does He ever fail to do the very best He can do, so that He can appeal to every creature and say--What more can I do to prevent sin than I am doing! Indeed, He does so appeal to every intelligent mind. He made this appeal through Isaiah to the ancient Jews--"And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?"
Every moral agent in the universe knows that God has done the best he could do in regard to sin. Do not you know this, each one of you? Certainly you do. He himself, in all his infinite wisdom could not suggest a better course than that which He has taken. Men know this truth so well, they never can know it better. You may at some future day realize it more fully when you shall come to see its millions of illustrations drawn out before your eyes; but no demonstration can make its proof more perfect than it is to your own minds today.
Now sin does in fact exist under God's government. For this sin, God either is or is not to blame. Every man knows that God is not to blame for this sin, for man's own nature affirms that He would prevent it if He wisely could. Certainly if He was able wisely to prevent sin in any case where it actually occurs, then not to do so nullifies all our conceptions of his goodness and wisdom. He would be the greatest sinner in the universe if, with power and wisdom adequate to the prevention of sin, He had failed to prevent it.
Let me here note also that what God can not do wisely, he cannot, (speaking morally,) do at all. For He cannot act unwisely. He cannot do things which wisdom forbids. To do so would be to undeify himself. The supposition would make him cease to be perfect, and this were equivalent to ceasing to be God.
Or thus; if He were to interpose unwisely to prevent a sinner from sinning, He would sin himself. I speak now of each instance in which God does not in fact interpose to prevent sin. In any of these cases, if He were to interpose unwisely to prevent sin, He would prevent a man from sinning at the expense of sinning himself. Here then is the case. A sinner is about to fall before temptation, or in more correct language, is about to rush into some new sin. God cannot wisely prevent his doing so. Now what shall be done? Shall He let that sinner rush on to his chosen sin and self-wrought ruin; or shall He step forward unwisely, sin himself, and incur all the frightful consequences of such a step? He lets the sinner bear his own responsibility. Why should not He? Who would wish to have God sin?
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1854OE/540802_where_sin_occurs.htm
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/10/2004 11:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne: I think if we stop to consider who He is - beyond what He does or doesn't do for us - perhaps we won't need quite so many answers. There are times when I get overwhelmed by life and overwhelmed looking for the answers to life's perplexities and I need to refocus on WHO He is.
Tom: The questions we're asking about good and evil ARE about WHO God is. Carlie's parents will ask "Who is God? What's he like? Did he do this?" Refocus on WHO God is. Great. So WHO is he? To decide WHO to focus on is to provide the context in which we answer those questions about life that overwhelms us.
I'm probably not making sense.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 2/11/2004 3:41 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 2/11/2004 1:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Ooops! Sorry about that, John Earp. I meant to thank you for that article.
BTW, TGB, since this is your thread I have a question to ask you. Has any of what I contributed on this thread been helpful because I've noticed you haven't commented on what I wrote and I was trying to help you with your processing of this tragedy. Hey, no problema if it wasn't helpful -- I'm just curious.
Jo-Anne, I agree that it blows me away with how patient and kind God is to us. When I contemplate on what Christ (who was free from sin) did on the cross for our sin it blows me away! When I visualize the face of pain Christ had as he hung on that cross or when I imagine hear how he cried as they dug those nails into his flesh, I am humbled. When I catch a glimpse of what it must have felt like to bear the load on the cross for the love of an unworthy bride I stand in adoration. When we focus on who God through the act of love on the cross I believe we can start to understand that God CANNOT be behind the evil in the world.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/11/2004 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok. Really quick. I think that there is a way I can encapsulate this. and it's by answering this question from Tom.
Question: Does God ever lose?
Answer: God does "lose", but only in contexts and/or situations where God gives GODSELF space to lose.
Filling this out. Let's use the Ezekiel passage. Is it possible that things could have went like so..
God DID have the power to raise up at LEAST one person to stand in the gap to pray for the people by some micromanaging, highly motivating, or even compatibilistic method, such that prayer would be offered to save the people. But obviously God didn't want to do it THAT way. What God did was decide that, IN THIS SITUATION, God would work via a particular method to raise someone up that would work TOTALLY on the response of human beings. What this would mean is that IF no human beings would answer his call unders those circumstances, than the people would be judged. Notice that here, God's maximization of good and minimization of evil is working within the parameters of God's purpose for the situation. Unfortunately, God couldn't find one person within those parameters...therefore judgement came.
BUT...
If God had chosen that God just plain did NOT want to judge them, period...AND that was God's purpose at that time...God COULD HAVE done something more drastic to raise someone up. Given a vision. A dream. A burning bush. I don't care. Something!
In this case, God "loses" the Ezekiel affair BECAUSE God gave Godself the space to lose.
Why is this important?
I believe this fills out the biblical view much more aptly than Doc and Tom's view. What it does is it ultimately makes God's purposes ONE OF THE FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION when talking about a particular instance of evil. How else could we explain how in ONE section, Jesus stops a whole storm with a couple of words...and in another section, he can't do healings because of the unbelief of the people?? How in one section God opens the earth, swallows a family, and closes the earth back up...and in another section, has God's angelic envoy to Daniel held up for 21 days? Doc and Tom would like to answer these questions by just saying its the creational factors, given God's choice of Creation. But this ends up with the "broke down TV" motif where it would seem that the ONLY way that you would get any type of IMMEDIATE divine action would be on the OFF CHANCE that no significant creational factors were opposing God at the time. The "you got lucky" thing.
It makes sense to me to rather than imply that God NEVER has completely unilateral power when it comes to healing, delivering, etc (which I believe Doc's view does), let's say that God DOES have unilateral power, but chooses not to use it at certain times, instead interacting with free-will and chance situations. Sometimes God acts unilaterally and NO forces can stop what God wants. At other times, God gives 'agency space' to free-willed beings and chance such that it is genuinely POSSIBLE that God doesn't get what God wants, in the context of that situation.
This makes sense of the biblical data in my mind. But the problem is that it creates issues with the problem of evil. Because NOW, you have these issues:
1) God could allow or ordain a particular event of pain, suffering, or evil for reasons that we don't understand.
2) One cannot say that "God always maximizes the good and minimizes the evil" as a BLANKET PRINCIPLE to be applied Creation-wide...unless one includes God's unknown purposes being fulfilled as part of that "good"!
2) Even if a particular evil event occured, and it was due to the "agency space", we have NO way of knowing WHY God chose to give "agency space" where he gave it.
3) Because of the complexity of the world, one could NEVER FOR CERTAIN know what definitive factors played into any given instance of pain, suffering, or evil. We could guess but we wouldn't know, unless God told us.
What do you think?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/11/2004 4:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Doc and Tom would like to answer these questions by just saying its the creational factors, given God's choice of Creation. But this ends up with the "broke down TV" motif where it would seem that the ONLY way that you would get any type of IMMEDIATE divine action would be on the OFF CHANCE that no significant creational factors were opposing God at the time. The "you got lucky" thing.
Tom: But, Mephi, your view is just as much a broken down TV as ours is. Even in your case (where God has secret divine purposes he brings into play sometimes), it’s STILL true that when I get healed or delivered miraculously by God, I just got lucky. Not only did all the factors Doc and I posit come together, but now all the factors Doc and I posit PLUS all the unrevealed purposes God has variously going which you posit come together, which means when I’m healed in your world I’m MORE lucky than when I’m healed in my world, for you put MORE into play. Best go FIX YO TV! Kadabaka shandalalala! I'm takin BACK what the devil done stole from ME! Count my dominos and Gimme my money! 
Mephi: Look at Hebrews 12, when you get a chance. Ask yourself...WHAT were the circumstances of the "discipline of the Lord"? What was the writer talking about in Heb 12 as being the "chastisement" of God's people. Hmmm...
Tom: I’m on it bro. I’m on it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 2/11/2004 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | | Okay, TGB. I noticed you posted tonight but ignored my question. Still, no problemo. It would have been helpful for this ignorant soul to have received feedback but hey, what can I do. You have freewill to respond or not just as God gives us freedom to do his will or sin. | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 2/11/2004 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Mephi, I was thinking... You know what would be neat? If you could make some type of comparison chart or such to compare what you're side with Doc and TGB's side on this issue. It would be interesting to compare the two side by side.
Whatcha think? Is that a stupid idea? | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 2/11/2004 5:42 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/11/2004 6:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg,
Thanks for the cudos earlier regarding my summary of Open Theism. However, I must hasten to add that my words are only an amalgamation of Dr. Boyd (primarily) as well as Pinnock, Sanders, Gordon Olsen, Harry Conn, et al. And of course Jesus .I personally, have found Dr. Boyd, both in print and in conference, to speak or write with more clarity than any theologian, academic, pastor, or otherwise, in my experience. Imagine a Mexican Jumping Bean giving a lecture and there you have it. Never a dull moment
Regarding your statement:
“I still fail to see how God is "glorious" when Satan thwarts Him or dismantles His plans and forces Him to go to plan B. Rather I see the glory of God in His ability to accomplish all for His name's sake, to glorify His name, and to bring about whatever He so chooses and in saving and redeeming the people He has chosen.”
All agree that God can bring about “whatever” he chooses. However, I submit that Scripture reveals that the nature of the case of this world is that God has NOT simply chosen to do “whatever.” Rather, God has chosen to glorify His name in the context of this fallen world. Hence, by His own choosing, He cannot just choose to do “whatever.”
I do concede that God could have created a world in which He simply “strong-arms” Plan A. However, I do not believe that this is the world revealed in Scripture or in man’s intuition. I submit the “glory” of God as revealed in Scripture is in God’s ability to devise a “Plan B” all the way to a “Plan Z” to guarantee redemption to any one who follows the plan regardless of what Satan may do—EVEN IF SATAN CRUCIFIES HIS OWN SON.
Now that is GLORY…That is creation out of chaos…That is creation ex nilos…That is the power of LOVE…CAN I GET A WITNESS!!!
To God alone be the glory,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/11/2004 8:39 PM (GMT -6) | | QuestforTruth: BTW, TGB, since this is your thread I have a question to ask you. Has any of what I contributed on this thread been helpful because I've noticed you haven't commented on what I wrote and I was trying to help you with your processing of this tragedy.
Tom: Keep it coming QFT! I can't always respond point for point to everything. I saw that you mentioned having asked Mephi about a chart. That would be cool. But they're hard to post 'cause they're a graphic.
I remember your mentioning the wheat and the tares also. Good point. God thought it best t leave evil influences in place because attempting to rip it out all at once now would cause more harm. Hmmm.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 2/11/2004 9:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
Question for anyone/everyone:
Do you believe God has plan A, B, C etc? I "grew up" in a denomination where you prayed for God's will and if you missed it, you missed what he had for you. I guess I like to think he is so creatively sovereign that He can make plan B plan A. Now does that make any sense?
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
Yes, though I would rather say God has an ultimate purpose in mind for all of us. The "plan for your life" sounds basically like the blueprint idea.
He has predestined us--to be conformed to the image of Christ. His purpose is that we be like Him. It has more to do with character development than what job we take, where we live, who we marry, etc., although those things are very important as well. It just seems to me that all those demographic decisions are secondary at best to who we are becoming.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 2/11/2004 10:18 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp quote:
You're very welcome. Glad to get a response about it.
Thank you for your understanding and humor!
TGBquote:
I remember your mentioning the wheat and the tares also. Good point. God thought it best t leave evil influences in place because attempting to rip it out all at once now would cause more harm. Hmmm.
Yes, that was the one that I had hoped would be of interest to you. When someone presented that bible story to me in relationship to evil I found it interesting and helpful. I had hoped perhaps it might be a help to you too.
Jo-Anne quote:
Do you believe God has plan A, B, C etc? I "grew up" in a denomination where you prayed for God's will and if you missed it, you missed what he had for you. I guess I like to think he is so creatively sovereign that He can make plan B plan A. Now does that make any sense?
I believe, as John shared, that God's ultimate purpose for our lives is to become more like him. What I believe about plan A,B,C.... is that when we choose to sin, or when evil happens to us (as with Carli's family), we are stirred out of what God would have wanted for us. God works within the reality and redirects our path -- He's constantly working to salvage what the enemy robs, steals, or destroys in our lives.
What do you think?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/12/2004 12:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
But, Mephi, your view is just as much a broken down TV as ours is. Even in your case (where God has secret divine purposes he brings into play sometimes), it’s STILL true that when I get healed or delivered miraculously by God, I just got lucky. Not only did all the factors Doc and I posit come together, but now all the factors Doc and I posit PLUS all the unrevealed purposes God has variously going which you posit come together, which means when I’m healed in your world I’m MORE lucky than when I’m healed in my world, for you put MORE into play. Best go FIX YO TV! Kadabaka shandalalala! I'm takin BACK what the devil done stole from ME! Count my dominos and Gimme my money!
Nope. Ya miscounted, Tom. If I get a miraculous deliverance, it could be in three contexts...
1) God just wanted you delivered and made a UNILATERAL choice to do so...negating all other factors effectively.
2) God wanted you delivered and, via EXTREMELY PERSUASIVE means (possibly even working compatibilistically), used other agents to do so.
3) God was able to work among the creational factors in a situation, and given things were aligned properly, God was able to deliver you.
My view is not the broke down TV view. My view is the PARENTAL view. Explaining. It would be like a parent who lets his 11 year old cook with him sometimes. And what this father does is this: Sometimes, the father gives the kid space to have much more control over what's prepared for dinner that night. The kid helps decide what will be eaten and how it's prepared. And NO MATTER HOW IT COMES OUT, the family has to deal with that. At these times, the parent can operate to PERSUADE the child in one direction or another...but he ultimately allows the freedom in that situation to be effectively overruled.
But...
There are other times when the father has a specific intention for dinner in mind and at THOSE times, the father may do one of two things:
1) Decide to make the meal completely himself...or
2) Let the child help the father BUT WITHIN VERY STRICT INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION, such that the father is the PRIMARY influence on what's being prepared.
Now, let's say that we are sitting and having dinner with that family...and we see that we are having macaroni and cheese. If I knew how the family operates, and no one told me who did what, I could guess that one of three things happened.
1) The father made macaroni and cheese by himself...because he wanted it for some reason.
2) The father told, directed, or even convinced (by whatever means) the kid to make macaroni and cheese, because the father wanted it for some reason...and the kid did it.
3) The father wanted ANYTHING ELSE BUT macaroni and cheese, and actually tried to persuade the kid AWAY from it...but the kid REALLY wanted macaroni and cheese (for whatever reasons may have influenced the kid) and fixed that.
If someone were to ask me the question, "Why are we having macaroni and cheese tonight?" I'd have to say..."I DON'T KNOW. It could have been any number of reasons." In other words, I'd have to posit agnosticism on the factors of THIS PARTICULAR NIGHT of having macaroni and cheese.
Feel me?
Tom, your and Doc's view basically has things ALWAYS being in the category where the "agency space" is something God has to work with. And I understand why: Because THAT's the main thing that holds the theodicy together. THAT's the insight of process theology that makes it work. You have to say that it is NEVER the case that God can do unilateral actions But once you posit that God CAN do unilateral action, despite ALL free-willed factors even only SOMETIMES, then you have the problem of evil all over again because now it's POSSIBLE for God to make maximization of Creation's aesthetic value a secondary consideration to another, more specific, divine purpose of God. And THAT messes up the whole theodicy.
And I will cry this from the mountaintops. Heh.
Now, gimme MY money!
Waitin for dominoes,
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 777 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:59 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|