quote:

---

You have to forgive me, but I found the name playing God to be rather offensive and critical, without bearing down any specific thing about the forum that you thought could be done differently.

---

What could be done differently has been expressed many times. We could pretend we are actually Christians who fear God while we engage with issues that bear on the nature and charater of God.

I agree with the oft expressed evanelical sentiment "that God can handle whatever we dish out" (that is not the point) but I am expressing a warning because I love you people here and would prefer you not to have to handle what may be coming in terms of accountability for carelessness with God. I do so acknowledging what Honorman will no doubt reiterate. That I am the chief of sinners in this regard.

DLW said:

quote:

---

I associated you saying that what we were doing as playing God and that this was an act of lack of humility. I probably overreacted.

---

No. That was indeed the point. Minus all the other stuff you dragged into it. Do you mean to suggest that theological humility is not possible for an open theist? That's what it feels like to me.

DLW says:

quote:

---

The existing order is not one run by God.

---

Very clever. But that is precisely the problem of evil is it not? God is omnipotent, omnibenevelant, and yet evil reigns? You beg the question. Are you disagreeing with my claim that God is God? IF not, then we are right back in the mess.


DLW reminds me:

quote:

---

You are a theology student, you must understand that we don't deal with the problem of evil on this forum, but rather the reality of evil, concrete aspects that are generally accepted as Evil, but on which there are potentially strong differences of opinion as to what can or should be done about it...

---

Thanks. I almost forgot (warning!: that was sarcasm, refrain from patting back). I do not grant your distinction nor your mission to change the title of this thread. What should be done about the problem of evil is quite clear. Cast out demons, forgive one another, obey God, sacrifice yourself, seek first the Kingdom of God, pray, testify to the goodness of God, serve one master, fear God and love yourself rightly (oh, yeah, heal the sick, feed the poor, care for the oppressed and the abandoned, etc.). I guess there are other expressions as well, but this is the gist of it. If you are to be involved with the relativities of this world and the ethical conumdrums it poses, I do hope it is becuase you are called to do so. Otherwise, stick to the above which is the unambiguous calling of all Christians. When you get done doing those things, THEN start fixing God's mess. But let me know, I could use some help on mine first.

quote:

---

You don't really interact with what we are doing here and the broad strokes you paint do paint attempts to change the status quo orders that exist as us telling God that we know better than God does how to run the universe.

This is not an open view.

---

That is not at all my point. And I am still an Open theist. Try rereading. Somehow Electra got it. Perhaps there is still hope of being understood under the sun...

quote:

---

Um, if you'd like to be more concrete about what specifically you see as not fearing the lord, that would be appreciated much.

---

Sure, the mood. The manner in which we engage God. Or rather, ignore God while dealing with God's problems. Evil is actually God's problem to solve, not yours. And if you have a role to play in it, I trust that God will let you know. Though you will need a more robust pnuemetology! Ha! (That was a joke.)

quote:

---

Neither is Science a purely objective enterprise like science, but there are aspects of Science that can be emulated. In particular the experimentalist attitude that we are doing is not from the mouth of God, so we can reconsider and try alternatives if we as a community do not find that it is working(like for example the political tactics used by pro-life activists for the past 20 plus years that resulted in cancelling or reducing the budgets of health clinics for the poor that might be performing abortions(as well as lots of other stuff) and the ban on partial birth abortions. ).

---

Thank you Data, I stand corrected.

DLW said:

quote:

---

How would it be different? Would we affirm then that in some vague manner God is in Control? Or, would we accept that ultimately what matters is that God's will be done and not our own?

---

It would be different by the mood, or atmosphere. God is creator, lets not forget that. That is to say, that God is in at least one sense, exactly as much in control as God has decided to be, for God's own purposes and glory. You are limiting the categories to monergism. That is not at all implied. Not to mention you should know better.

DLW said:

quote:

---

So I should tremble in fear when I share my deliberation about when human life begins or what political alternatives are available on it?

vague.

---

Those topics are not about God. They are about creation. Insofar as you do it with the knowledge of God as creator. Yes, I recommend relating to God as though God were indeed Absolute and the only hope for your eternal happiness. That seems reasonable, all things considered...

quote:

---

Unhelpful, of course we can't do something about these things here on the discussion board, because this is where we discuss things.... I did do stuff about my beliefs regarding the reality of evil while I was in Grad School. I was a top organizer to form a union for graduate students.

---

Here's where you are wrong. Having these discussion is not ethically neutral. We are affecting people and real structures as we speak. We are responsible for our thoughts and words as well as our actions. This seems self-evident to me.

Modes said:

quote:

---

Rather we might need to discuss the biblical, vs the contemporary view of the meaning of life and death....just a hint in a different direction...

---

DLW responded:

quote:

---

Vague. I already mentioned that because of increased ability to observe and abort fetuses that we deal with the question of when human life begins differently than they did in Biblical times. Now, what you suggest may be a great thing for us to do in conjunction with the ongoing debates, but ultimately at the end of the day the key issues we discuss are concrete specifics regarding how we use our say-so to address the evils that face us today.

Which falls under the problem of order, in that we must work our differences to build or redirect our solidarity on issues.

---

Your answer is to refer this to the problem of order as a way of avoiding the vagueness of my referring the problem of evil to the question of the significance of life and death in the Bible? Strange. I cannot grant that the problem of order is less vague that a clear set of ideas that change over history. It appears to me that your category is nearly as "meta" as is possible. Hence, a runner up for the king of vague.

Love ya brother!

"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc

quote:

---

Since when has the phrase playing God not been provocative, or how about him giving the scenario where God reacts to us telling him to move over to the passenger seat.

---

quote:

---

Modes: I am saying that when I take this text seriously it causes me to think about theology differently. There is a mood in which theology should be done: humility. It is not a purely objective enterprise like some sort of science.

DLW: Neither is Science a purely objective enterprise like science, but there are aspects of Science that can be emulated.

---

quote:

---

Of all visible and invisible creation man alone is created dual. He has a body composed of four elements, the senses and breath; and he has a soul, invisible, unsubstantial, incorporeal joined to the body in an ineffable and unknown manner; they interpenetrate and yet are not compounded, combine and yet do not coalesce. This is what man is: an animal both mortal and immortal, both visible and invisible, both sensory and intellectual, capable of seeing the visible and knowing the invisible creation.

St. Symeon the New Theologian, Practical and Theological Precepts no. 152, Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart; Faber and Faber pgs. 133-134

---

quote:

---

Modes: I am not really interested in whether or not you are the "chief of sinners," or not but rather I do not understand why you are surprised by such radical response. If this is a personal thing, why not simply state as such. That way the honesty provokes the actual response you are looking for. Instead, you chose to universalize it and cause misunderstanding. The direct path is usually the best.

Humility before God is always the most wonderous path, but straightforwardness with fellow struggling humans also helps...

---

quote:

---

DLW: Too often God is invoked as a claim to power ...

---

quote:

---

dlw
"Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner!" Thanks Pow, before I ever bring up the problem of order again, I will preface my remarks with this..., but "Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner!" I will not back away from my belief that the problem of order is of central importance in how we work out our practices on many of the pressing issues of our day. It bears continuity with the focus on the problem of evil, but is quite different in other respects.

---

quote:

---

DLW

I know. I am not sure myself, but part of me was reacting to your general thrust that such a statement was all we needed.

My point was that acknowledging our sinfulness and need for forgiveness is a good starting point for dialogue, but does not settle the problems of order we inevitably attend to.
dlw

---

quote:

---

What do you know about my grandfather? Sidney Larson or Ole Larson(his father)?

My views are not the same as the liberals. I do not proclaim that preaching the Gospel doesn't matter.

Would you care to elaborate on this Antithesis notion?

---

quote:

---

As to "ANTITHESIS" Calvinism is intrinsically anti-dualistic. There is no room for the sacred/profain duality. Every inch is Christ's. All is then done God-centeredly ("thetically") of "antithetically."

---

quote:

---

Christian criterion of affirmation of this man's infinite worth before God? What about his soul? Clearly my killing him insures his judgment before God in this sorry state. I may have great confidence in my salvation and that of my wife, and now I am saying that our temporary suffering is worse than his eternal damnation. My allowing him to commit his evil is not necessarily a reinforcement of his propensity. That seems just an excuse to make it easier to take another person's life. By reference to "life" in general rather than this particular intruder's soul. Rather, my standing for the truth of God that he is loved and that God was willing to die for him could give him pause, if not before, than perhaps after, to consider what might have caused a person to respond so differently than expected. Christ convinced people of his deity before his resurrection because of the way he died. Proclaiming forgiveness and expressing the truth of God's love rather than clinging to this life.


PLEASE understand, and my wife knows this all too well, I do not imagine myself capable of doing what described above. I think I would easily value my life and my wife's dignity far above the life of the intruder. But this is no credit to me. It surely is not love in the eternal sense of God's will for the salvation of all people. Rather than try to convert my lack of faith and obedience into "love", I choose to acknowledge the ideal and recognize my distance from it. It is humiliating, but it is the way of love.

---

quote:

---

PoW: As to "ANTITHESIS" Calvinism is intrinsically anti-dualistic. There is no room for the sacred/profain duality. Every inch is Christ's. All is then done God-centeredly ("thetically") of "antithetically."

DLW: Avoiding dualities is good. Denying the reality of evil isn't.

---

quote:

---

PoW: As to "My views are not the same as the liberals. I do not proclaim that preaching the Gospel doesn't matter. " YES YOU ARE A LIBERAL (By Bernard Ramm's definition). Liberals do not "not" preach the gospel--they just make it more palletable, watering it down. It is "Modernists" that do not preach the gospel. (Again, Ramm.)

dlw: I do preach the gospel. I have devoted a lot of time and energy as an apologeticist. It so happens that a lot of my writing is geared at understanding issues and questioning existing views on topics that are secondary to the Gospel. I do not water it down. The Gospel of Christ does not belong to any particular tradition of Christianity and much of what I deny as capital-T Truth stems from such traditions(such as the belief human life begins at conception or that what sorts of institutions the Church should have to help constitutional homosexuals cope with their tragic condition.).

---

quote:

---

Al2Si2H4O9
10/28/2002 : 5:14:10 PM
---------------------------------------------------
I was reading today a book by Bernard Ramm -- an eminant Protestant theologian who passed on a few years ago. (He taught at Bethel College around 1950.) In it (the book "The Evangelical Hertage: A study in Historic Theology") he pointed out that Schleiermacher reversed the order of things by making subjective, personal experiential faith become superior to the thing believed. I can't say that it had to be a bad thing; but it was done, perhaps, in a bad way.

Ramm makes this remark: "The cultured German must be told that religion is not dogma, creed, or confession but a living experience with God." That looks good to me. But the following is the unpacking that Ramm offers on Schleiermacher's reversal: The essence of faith to Schleiermacher was feeling.

I think I understand the discussion Modes and honorman are having. I think. honorman may not understand Modes. But Modes seems to be making a valuable distinction between cold-Dogma and Truth to be believed. GIANT in the Christian faith is that Christ IS the Truth: Truth is a Person. Schleiermacher's division between faith (feeling, based on romantic connectivity between God, nature and man) and the God our faith rests in is a false choice. You betcha.

I think that we have to avoid any temptation to either turn our faith into a stand-alone object, or to reduce it to feelings. Either way seems prone to become a substitue for the "real thing."

Al

---