Christianity
Out of selfless love!
Posts  1 - 13  of  13
silverglass


On another note. I have been reading some theologians who are trying to define the meaning of future contingencies concerning the future of free moral choices we have before us. These actions are such that they cannot be known ahead of time without doing injustice to the meaning of the word 'contingency' which means just that , that they are unknown actualities. Some of these theologians believe life is contingent in this world and as such there cannot be any beforehand known future free will choices. Others believe that God has determined all events so future free will contingencies are known beforehand. In either case all theologians believe that unless these actions are determined or planned out ahead of time then there can be nothing to know. They struggle with the contradiction that God can both plan out our actions and at the same time allows us freedom in our choices. I sort of lean to the left as it were and believe that it is incompatible for a play to be scripted out and also say the players are free to choose their parts. So I agree with the freewill theists in saying just that, that future free will actions are unknown..
Immanual Kant said that there is no such thing as an uncaused event. So with us we do things usually because of some reason or cause. Does this mean we are determined to do things out of causal events or impetuous impulses. No I do not think so. The reason for our actions is retroactively grasped to allow us to reflect on why we chose to do one thing over another so it becomes intelligible why we do things. Weather or not we do things logically or stupidly we do them for a reason and not because we were determined to do them by causes unknown to us. So our experience bears this out.
The only thing that is not contingent is something that is not dependent on a cause for its actions outside of itself and that would be the prime mover or God. He is the cause for all that is good. He is not the cause of all that is evil. Therefore it follows that we are the cause of evil because of our choices which cannot be linked to or determined by God.
And so Christ loved us not because of any cause(s) outside himself or any unsure contingency, but out of selfless love!

Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
Yoda55
Replied to:  On another note. I have been reading...
Silverglass wrote: "These actions are such that they cannot be known ahead of time without doing injustice to the meaning of the word 'contingency' which means just that, that they are unknown actualities."

What you must first ask yourself is what you mean by 'unknown'. A human being is limited in ability to predict, and the *perceptions* we use are dependent upon the *perspective* from which we observe... A person attempting to make a decision has no a priori knowledge of conditions beyond the decision point - an 'unknown'.

Consider a mouse in a maze (height of the walls such that it cannot peek over to gain advantage). Each intersection is opportunity for decision. The summation of decisions will either lead to dead-ends (and re-evaluations of choices), or lead to one of two exits. One exit has a food reward, the other leads to a cat. The ultimate summation of decisions will indeed lead to an exit - only dependent upon the length of time required to make correct (or re-evaluate) choices. The mouse's perspective is limited to the passage it travels at that time, and the intersections it encounters. An observer (sitting outside the plane of the maze) can examine the maze and all intersections, capable of determining the consequences for each conceivable decision. The external observer is not influencing the decisions the mouse makes, unless his intent is to discourage the mouse from the path that leads to the cat. He can place incentives in the path, but the mouse still makes the choices.

I'm unsure of the definition you chose, but I prefer the following from Merriam-Webster: "not necessitated; determined by free choice". The mouse has free choice at each decision point - consequences follow any ill-considered decisions, even in the presence of incentives to acceptable behavior.

What is unexplained in your dissertation is the occasion of the human conscience or a "sixth sense", which causes the person to get a feeling that one choice is preferrable to its alternative.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  Yoda55
silverglass
Replied to:  Silverglass wrote: "These actions are such that they cannot be known...
Dear Yoda, Thanks for your response. I understand your analogy on the rat in the maze and its choices as it makes decisions from one point to the next. I however, have a problem with the maze and its limited exit points as beforehand determined so that in reality it is a determine world scenario in which the rat has been put into.
In addition, the supervisor your have inserted into the scenario as a passive observer must be understood as a timeless observer and therefore sees ahead of time the two possibilities that he has created. This attributes certain attributes to the maze creator in which he predetermines final events. One attribute would be that he would have to know ahead of time what will happen. This can only be known if he in fact has preplanned the events.
My understanding of preplanned events is that these events are not future free will actions. These events can only be understood as possibilities and not concrete actions else they would have to be determined. With this understanding in mind the biblical narrative never portrays God as holding anyone responsible for moral actions until those actions are carried out , never beforehand. A biblical example will suffice. See Genesis 22:12 in which the text implies that God does not know something ahead of time. That which he does not know is the future free will act of Abraham. This is what I mean by unknown actualities. The future free will acts are not knowable because they do not exist until they are carried out. This clears God from being culpable for knowing ahead of time evil intentions of which he could be called into question. If God knows ahead of time for example that Hitler would come on the scene and knowing this he goes ahead and creates the world in which Hitler would eventually rise to power , he , God, would then be the creator of evil. But if God does not create world scenarios in which evil comes to fruition then he is not responsible for those free will acts when they do occur. We are! We are then able to see how free will is indeed free from outside influences.

God knows all things...The things he knows are partly divine and immortal, partly perishable and temporal… His knowledge of uncertain things… cannot be different form their nature…They are…possible in both directions rather than subject to necessity…So contingent things are not inflexibly arranged and determined from the beginning with the sole exception of the very fact, that they must be uncertain. Calcidius, on fate.

Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
Yoda55
Replied to:  Dear Yoda, Thanks for your response. I understand...
Silverglass said: "...I however, have a problem with the maze and its limited exit points as beforehand determined so that in reality it is a determine world scenario in which the rat has been put into."

The illustration/analogy is simplistic, I guess. I didn't mean to give the impression that there are only two exits. It's the limitation of the illustration.

Perhaps, an analogy of a window-screen (cut in the shape of a triangle) is better. We start at the base of the screen, climbing toward the top (point). We can progress up, sideways, or regress among the nodes - the only constraint is that we cannot turn the time-clock back, but we can revisit some decision points. Progress toward the top, moving toward the right-hand slanted-edge has multiple outcomes along the edge but achieves the desired end-state ("heaven"). Equally, there is opportunity to progress to the top and left-hand slanted-edge with multiple outcomes but achieving the undesired end-state. If you're really into pain, you can try to imagine this matrix in three or more dimensions - just remember that there are only two ultimate end-states. The first is in keeping with the desired outcome (in consonance with God), and the other ends undisireably (in opposition to God, and we know where that leads).

A smoker has the opportunity to decide to light up a cigarette and consume it... or NOT. If he persists in the smoking decision rut, eventually he'll develop lung-cancer and die from it. Deciding not to smoke will avoid the damage incurred by the habit. Stopping partway down the sequence of decisions will limit the damage done, and MAY avoid the cancer (it depends on the threshhold of damage needed to initiate the cancer).

Remember...PERSPECTIVE and PERCEPTION... We aren't observing from a viewpoint (perspective) where we can determine (perception) if the human "free will" is indeed not following pre-determined construct... We could only verify a pre-planned nature of a limited, physical life-span from OUTSIDE the mortal container.

The other thing to bear in mind that we shouldn't apply human limitations to the characteristics and abilities of an omnipresent/ omniscient/ omnipotent God. He's "n"-dimensional (where "n" is indeterminate), and not constrained to our 4D (5D?) universe. His being a superset, we'd at best be aware only of a projection of Him on our universe.

Human beings, also, think serially. There's no evidence that He isn't capable of multi-parallel thought-strings.

BTW, I cannot find your Gen 22:12 citation, referring to inability of God to foresee something. What translation are you using? I'm looking at English Standard Version on biblegateway(.com).
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  Yoda55
silverglass
Replied to:  Silverglass said: "...I however, have a problem with the maze and...
Dear Yoda, I may not be of the same vein as you theistically speaking. However, this is not something that threatens my beliefs. With this in mind I am happy to continue this dialectic. Let me be clear about my understanding of theism. It is evolutionary but based on historical documents whether fragmentary or in full forms l believe that these are accurate accounts of real personages in history. Those document are what makes up the old and new testaments. In particular I believe that those documents contain the first hand witness accounts of the person called Jesus the Christ. He was attested to be the divine Logos.
Now this may seem too much for you but it speaks volumes on why I believe that God did something that many misunderstand. That is that God changed and became like us. He became a human being. Knowing or believing this gives credence to the texts I may refer to support what I believe. Now to be a little more revealing I must also say the God changed before he became a human being. I submit that once he entered the creative mode he changed from being a timeless being to a temporal God. This is born out in the biblical narrative and if you look closely you can see this for yourself.
Now concerning Abraham and the sequence of the test in Genesis 22:12 . I am reading the king James version in which it says , And He said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God…
Now the sequence is a ‘tensed mode’ in which God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham deliberates within himself and decides to carry out the killing. God intervenes and stops him. This sequence contains a past , present and future sequence that portrays two temporal beings in a tensed universe.
Now what is implied in the text is very controversial. For those who do not believe that God is a temporal being the implication in the text is not to be taken literally. For those who believe that God is a temporal being the text implies that God did not know what Abraham would do. As is implied in the words, “ for now I know”.
Now you said, We could only verify a pre-planned nature of a limited, physical life-span from OUTSIDE the mortal container. I am unsure what you mean by this. But it seems to me that being outside the mortal container would only limit your perspective. If for example you believe God to be a timeless observer then it would follow God would not be able to relate to temporal beings. One would have to agree that you and I could not communicated unless we are in past ,present and future states of temporal becoming. A timeless being does not take part in temporal states of becoming or moving from one state to the next in temporal sequencing. A timeless being is in a fixed or static state of unchanging infinity and so there is no before and after in such a state. Time is nonexistent is such a state and contingency is nil.
We who live in a tensed or temporal universe depend on time for it defines and gives meaning to our lives in a fluid give and take of moving from present to future states of being. In these states God takes his place among us, Immanuel.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
Yoda55
Replied to:  Dear Yoda, I may not be of the same vein...
Silverglass wrote: "Now this may seem too much for you but it speaks volumes on why I believe that God did something that many misunderstand. That is that God changed and became like us. He became a human being. Knowing or believing this gives credence to the texts I may refer to support what I believe. Now to be a little more revealing I must also say the God changed before he became a human being."

With regards to His changing, can you address the following: Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17? According to these two verses, God Himself stated that He is unchanging (read as in every aspect).

If the Bible is to be true, then it must be consistent throughout. It cannot afford to be false in any part. The Boolean AND Truth-table is the best way to view this. The only way for a True conclusion to proceed from any two precedents is for both precedents to be True. Any other combination is False, where one or both precedents are False.

I think it better to envision His human form (Jesus) to be the infinitely existant God occupying a flesh form as the soul which Jesus possessed.

Silverglass wrote: "Now concerning Abraham and the sequence of the test in Genesis 22:12. I am reading the King James version in which it says, 'And He said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God…' "

One of the reasons He was watching Abraham (and earlier, Adam) is the tying together of thought, words, and action (see John 1:1). God is referred to as "the Word" because all three of these qualities are in concert. They'd HAVE to be in order for God to be consistent. Referring to His thoughts, words, or actions is like referring to the other two qualities - one and the same... He was looking for consistency (Truth) in each of these two people, through the questions which elicited their admissions.

I think a partially rhetorical statement is being read as if God was not omniscient. He was letting Abraham know that He was aware of the struggle Abraham went through emotionally to act on his beliefs.

Take a look at Gen 3:8-13 and comment on this similar occasion, where He's asking questions of Adam and Eve... You don't think He already knew what happened between the couple and the serpent?... His questions were meant to elicit confession of behavior contrary to His instructions. His "walking" in the Garden was a stimulus to Adam and Eve to realize that He was around - setting them up for re-evaluating their own behavior.

Silverglass wrote: "Now you said, We could only verify a pre-planned nature of a limited, physical life-span from OUTSIDE the mortal container."

If a person is inside a situation, then all perceptions derived from that perspective are subjective. The perceptions are not based on an absolute frame of reference (which would provide an objective frame). One would need to achieve the absolute frame of reference to tell if the actions/decisions taken are in a pre-planned form (i.e. you have to be outside the maze to realize that the maze is there, and the constraints indemic to it).

Timelessness does not "have to" mean a different plane of existence. If someone lives forever, with no beginning or end, then marking time by any scale is meaningless to him. Any scaled unit interval chosen would be too small to be useful to this individual over an infinite period. Counting the intervals becomes astronomically large, no matter what the size of the unit interval.

The number of intervals elapsed would have to origin at an arbitrary point, since no starting point can be referenced. A mathematically defined "line" is infinite in both directions, looking from any selected point on the line. And, any point arbitrarily chosen can be labeled the "midpoint". But, that would mean the set of any arbitrarily selected points is an infinite set of points (i.e. the line itself). According to our use of "midpoint", half of the figure has to appear on one side of the point and the other half on the other side.

When God referred to Himself as "I am", He wasn't trying to be a smart aleck. He's describing an infinite condition (He's the only perpetual quality and substance) to a relatively infantile human being with no appreciation for a concept beyond formal reasoning contemporary to Abraham.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  Yoda55
silverglass
Replied to:  Silverglass wrote: "Now this may seem too much for you but...
Dear Yoda
One of the ongoing debates in Christian theology concerns how we talk about God. Should we continue to try to define God in the well established Greek-based categories and talk about the attributes of God in terms of the classic "omni-" doctrines (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence), as well as the classic divine negatives known as the via negativa (immutable, impassionate, ineffable, infinite, atemporal, ahistorical, etc)? Or should we try to develop new ways of talking about God that are more related to the biblical narratives and more relevant to the way we think in the modern world? Rather, the basic concern of most of Scripture is with the ongoing relationship between God and his people. Descriptions of God generally fall into that larger context governed by the basic metaphor of covenant, which is itself a metaphor of relationship: "I will be your God and you shall be my people" (for example, Ex 6:7, Jer 7:23, 11:4, 30:22, Eze 36:28). Even in the poetic descriptions of God in the Wisdom traditions or Psalms, the concern is not to define God in any absolute terms, but to communicate God in terms of relationship to the world and people, and the responsibility and accountability of both to God.
Each of these verses refers to God’s unchangeableness in relation to his faithfulness to his people. This is what it means contextually about God’s nature as being unchangeable. To pull it out of context and interpret it in a post modern definition would be unwarranted as it written to an audience who would understand it to mean that "there is no variation with God when it comes to his faithfulness concerning his covenant with his people.
Malachi 3:6 (New International Version, ©2011)
In this context the writer is referring to the Breaking of the Covenant by Withholding Tithes_ 6 “I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed > So the lord does not change in his faithfulness in his covenant to his people.
James 1:17 (New International Version, ©2011)17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
Now in this verse we are dealing with a before mention thought concerning trials and temptations. We should not be deceived by sin. God’s grace does not gives us liberty to sin
James 1:12 "Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him." In this case James is concerned about the brethren being deceived with respect to giving in to sin. "For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." Jude 1:4 God does not condone sin. "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." 1John 1:5 1Cor 6:9a Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived1John 3:7,8 Little children, let no one lead you astray. He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil and even a few verses later James says, "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says." James 1:22 Here is the contrast between us and God. We change in respect to our faithfulness to him . He never changes in his faithfulness to us.
In either case both of the above texts you have brought up are dealing with the differences between people and god. We are apt to move in our faithfulness he is always unchanging in his relationship in covenantal situations toward his people.
Now concerning the Divine Logos. You stated: I think it better to envision His human form (Jesus) to be the infinitely existent God occupying a flesh form as the soul which Jesus possessed.
I can only show you the text concerning this mystery of which we must agree.
1 Timothy 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh, …

The NICENE CREED which Christendom supports is the preeminent interpretation of the divinity of Christ not as a dualistic entity but rather as god in every aspect as one personality.

As for your thoughts on the what the text is saying in the Genesis account of Abraham. You stated , One of the reasons He was watching Abraham (and earlier, Adam) is the tying together of thought, words, and action (see John 1:1). God is referred to as "the Word" because all three of these qualities are in concert. They'd HAVE to be in order for God to be consistent. Referring to His thoughts, words, or actions is like referring to the other two qualities - one and the same... He was looking for consistency (Truth) in each of these two people, through the questions which elicited their admissions..
What these text are implying is a matter of metaphor in some instances and we can decipher this throughout the various texts. So when the bible speaks of God in terms of not knowing where Adam is it is portrayed as metaphorically . On the other hand when we come to texts that speak of god in a covenant relationship with people we must see what the texts is telling us. What is the meaning of the test that Abraham passed? If god already knew what was to transpire then what does this test reveal to us?
The whole idea of this test is just another part in the whole in which God has to know for himself whether or not Abraham is in fact the guy for the job. That job being that god needed to bring about the nation of Israel and he needed certain patriarchs or people who would be faithful to his calling. Abrahams was faithful to god when he left his homeland and ventured out into a new unknown land. For he did not know where he was going but believed god and it was accounted to him as righteousness. On the other hand Abraham was inconsistent as you noted in your response and this is what bothered god. The texts say that Abraham at a later point lost his trust in god when he told pharaoh that his wife was his sister fearing for his life. This is just the thing that God had to know. Would Abraham fail him as the prime leader of the nation of faith (Israel) and would he at some point in the future show his character flaw when god needed him most to be faithful in every respect. How was he to be sure about this?
The ultimate test of Abrahams faithfulness would be found in the most revealing character trait of Abraham himself. Would he obey god and sacrifice his son?? I submit no one not even God knew this. I submit the text is relevant to this point that after the test was completed god knew he could then trust Abraham in any situation that would call Abrahams faithfulness to obey god in future free will contingencies .
Here is another text that you might want to ponder when considering the openness of future free will contingencies.
Exodus 32:10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." What are we to make of this text? Abraham was promised that his seed would inherit the earth yet in this text god is about to destroy all of Israel and start anew with Moses. If god knew that he would destroy Israel before the foundation of the world then what is the meaning of making false promises to Abraham concerning his seed?

Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
Yoda55
Replied to:  Dear Yoda One of the ongoing debates in Christian theology concerns...
Silverglass wrote: "One of the ongoing debates in Christian theology concerns how we talk about God... The NICENE CREED which Christendom supports is the preeminent interpretation of the divinity of Christ not as a dualistic entity but rather as god in every aspect as one personality."

I'm not sure, but I think you subscribe to a 'substance characteristics' view of God - which is treating the Son and the Holy Spirit as contextual variants of a single personality (e.g. you are simultaneously a *father* to your children, a *son* to your parents, and a *husband* to your wife - yet only one personality in one being).

I think this projects human finiteness limitations onto the character of God. I think that God is more complex than that. I think God has revealed to us three discernable personalities within the same substance of being.

I don't subscribe to just a single personality stepping through the motions/script of occupying a human body (after having been the creator), and thereby fulfilling a scripture prophesy for a savior. The terror of Jesus in the garden over His impending trial and torture was very real to Him, as the volunteer (of a triune Godhead) to act as example/teacher and sacrifice.

It wouldn't make sense for the Father to grant Him (the Son) special honors and acquiesce right of judgement, if He hadn't been acting independently (but being in concert, as part of one substance).

Jesus crying out on the cross for His feeling of being forsaken by the Father - a sense of aloneness, for a personality who had never been alone - is indicative of single substance with multiple, simultaneous, independent personalities capable of independent feeling.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
Yoda55
Replied to:  Dear Yoda One of the ongoing debates in Christian theology concerns...
Silverglass wrote: "As for your thoughts on the what the text is saying in the Genesis account of Abraham. You stated , One of the reasons He was watching Abraham (and earlier, Adam) is the tying together of thought, words, and action (see John 1:1). God is referred to as "the Word" because all three of these qualities are in concert. They'd HAVE to be in order for God to be consistent... Abraham was promised that his seed would inherit the earth yet in this text god is about to destroy all of Israel and start anew with Moses. If god knew that he would destroy Israel before the foundation of the world then what is the meaning of making false promises to Abraham concerning his seed?"

The meaning of testing Abraham was to give Abraham a chance to take the thought and marry it with the words and deeds, causing him to follow God's lead in being consistent and putting one's whole belief and energies in a direction. Since God had already discerned Abraham's qualities (being the one who made him), it was necessary for Abraham to become aware of the necessity of consistency in order to act well and be acceptable to God (righteous). The soul of Abraham was in need of being taught about what God wants from us - a parent teaching a child.

God knows that 'free will' to make choices have the potential to let the human being wander from the consistency. Remember, God didn't want automatons - He desires love to be reciprocated because the human being WANTS to, not because he's coded to do it without having to think.

God wouldn't make false promises to Abraham. The generation of Hebrews who followed Moses into the desert were given a warning about their tendency to look back over their shoulders to what was left in Egypt. Although the treatment in Egypt was harsh, the refugees were comparing that to the wandering in the desert where creature comforts were non-existant. The Hebrews continued to have children, even during the extended trip through the desert. A new generation was alive who was unfamiliar with Egypt - and therefore were less inclined to the same sins as the older generation. If God were to destroy ALL, then yes He would have lied to Abraham. But, God intended to save the new generation and exterminate the older generation (because of their lack of faith). He didn't lie to Abraham. His promise didn't say that ALL of Abrahams descendants were going to live normal full lives. Their paths are contingent upon their faithfulness and their 'free will' decisions.

Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  Yoda55
silverglass
Replied to:  Silverglass wrote: "As for your thoughts on the what the text...

Dear Yoda, In one of your earlier posts you stated the following, “I think it better to envision His human form (Jesus) to be the infinitely existent God occupying a flesh form as the soul which Jesus possessed”.
I was taken aback by this statement as being a Greek understanding of dualism and separation of a being into a body and a soul. In the Hebrew understanding of God there exists no division in the whole of a being but rather God is seen as a unified whole. The famous call to Israel reflects this understanding, “Hear Oh Israel , The Lord Our God Is One”. With this in mind I interpreted your statement as unbiblical in its application to the texts.
In your last post you seem to have turned around this statement and now are ascribing a new ideal more in line with the biblical understanding of God in Christ as being unified as being 100 percent man and 100 percent God intertwined in the same being. This is in line more with the biblical concept in my thinking.
Your latest response states, “I'm not sure, but I think you subscribe to a 'substance characteristics' view of God - which is treating the Son and the Holy Spirit as contextual variants of a single personality (e.g. you are simultaneously a *father* to your children, a *son* to your parents, and a *husband* to your wife - yet only one personality in one being).
Be assured I do not ascribe to a Jesus only type of doctrine. I in fact believe there exists three distinct personalities. Father, Son & Holy Spirit. However, I do not ascribe Jesus In his earthly form anything less than the third character of the eternal Godhead.
You stated the following, Jesus crying out on the cross for His feeling of being forsaken by the Father - a sense of aloneness, for a personality who had never been alone - is indicative of single substance with multiple, simultaneous, independent personalities capable of independent feeling. This is quite an interesting interpretation of the nature of both the text and of the nature of God. I do not believe you can show that Jesus has ever been separated from the father. But I can see that the way you do your interpretation is in a post modern word for word diaglott. This is not the way theologians do translation. I have two years of Greek translation under my belt and so I am familiar with the ancient Koine Greek. Not to brag about it but only to let you know that there are hermeneutical principals that are necessary for interpreting these texts. However, I find that this is how most modern Christians interpret.
When you state that God forsakes Jesus on the cross I think you make the same mistake many have made over the ages. God is an inseparable unity and as such the scripture states that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself 2 Corinthians KJ 5:19.. "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally." (Douay-Rheims). Colossians 2:9
To be clear about my theism concerning all that we have so far talked about I ascribe to the Openness Doctrine. I am a freewill theist. As such I resist the infiltration of platonic philosophy which is found in much of the traditional forms of Christian theism. Without knowing it many, and I can see it in your responses, are indoctrinated into the platonic forms of understanding of God. Greek ideas which attribute say , immutability to God are absolutely unbiblical. You yourself resist the texts in what they are saying and reinterpret them in light of Reformed Augustine theology. When you read the bible you interpret it literally in the deterministic platonic sense but treat other texts that provide an unknown or open future about contingencies as anthrtrophomorphic and therefore untenable in the literal sense. This is not unusual as reformed theology believes that God determines all things. This again is unbiblical. God is seen in the text as a God who changes in relation to people and to attribute to him an unchanging character is unbiblical as far as I can tell when I read the texts. In my last post I tried to show you that Moses was influential in getting god to change his mind about what he was about to do in destroying Israel. God seems not to know something about Israel. That there unbelief would drive him to consider destroying all of them. Did he not know this before he delivered them from Egypt?
Lets take another example for the old testament and see for yourself how you approach the text in terms of bringing beforehand a metaphorical bias. I am just about sure that your belief concerning the foreknowledge issues of what god knows ahead of time will drive you to interpret the text as
anthropomorphic.
So with this in mind let get to the text. Genesis 6:7 King James Bible,
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repented me that I have made them.
Now we have here yet another contingency that does not jive with the idea of “exhaustive definite foreknowledge” (EDF). If god has from eternity past before the foundations of the world a settled understanding of all future contingencies then how is it he regrets making mankind?
Regret involves mourning over what is not known ahead of time. If god knew that mankind would turn out in such a fashion then why is he surprised by this fact? Did he not know this would happen? It seems quite evident from the text that this was something of a unknown event else he could have saved himself killing everyone by not creating them In the first place. Contingency, Contingency, Contingency! What is the meaning of contingency?



Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
Yoda55
Replied to:  Dear Yoda, In one of your earlier...
Silverglass wrote: "In one of your earlier posts you stated the following, “I think it better to envision His human form (Jesus) to be the infinitely existent God occupying a flesh form as the soul which Jesus possessed”. I was taken aback by this statement as being a Greek understanding of dualism and separation of a being into a body and a soul. In the Hebrew understanding of God there exists no division in the whole of a being but rather God is seen as a unified whole. The famous call to Israel reflects this understanding, “Hear Oh Israel , The Lord Our God Is One”. With this in mind I interpreted your statement as unbiblical in its application to the texts."

Jesus was born into the Hebrew faith and society, growing up and studying the Hebrew scriptures - reading from the Tanakh and discussing it with both the local Galilean Sabbath gatherings and the Jerusalem Temple scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees.

Mark 12 records him being questioned by Sadducees and scribes, and answering (verses 30-35). He answered correctly, and with such understanding that they were reluctant to ask more of Him. He listed off four contributing aspects of loving God - heart, soul, mind, and strength. Now, three of these aspects are physically verifiable characteristics of the body. What about the fourth - soul. What does this mean? Is it quantifiable? The Hebrew leadership understood it to be a facet of the human being. Verses 18-27 Jesus tells the Sadducees that there are souls (spirits, representing each individual, which outlive the body). He said that God was the God ove the "living", not the dead. This tells me Jesus was the (distinct) God personality, which inhabited that particular body, and could suffer and feel isolated.

One has to be careful looking at the Old Testament and assuming that the Hebrews understood all of what they were writing 'all at once'. I think I pointed out (in one of these threads) that the progression, represented by the Christian Bible Canon, is the birth, development (as toddlers), to the adult (modern man) with different explanations given 'as the understanding was capable'. We learn the finer distinctions of heaven, hell, life, death, and God with the New Testament scriptures - for the same reason that Jesus took ten commandments and summarized them into two... The rules were a yardstick (just like used with a four-year old) when the 'why' cannot be adequately explained - and must be answered by the adult as 'because'. When the child grows into formative years, the explanations can become more involved - because the language can support more theoretical/philosphical discourse.

I don't think the concept of Jesus (the particular personality of God) being able to exist, out of direct physical(?) contact with the Father and Holy Spirit, is impossible. When the ancient Hebrews wrote what they could understand, they were using concepts with which they were familiar - a human being was a single unit, not as cooperatively operating parts with mortal and immortal aspects. If you think they were correct, then think upon the creation of man himself. God breathed life into the physical body - He imbued Adam with a soul, an immortal spirit 'coming directly from God Himself'.

You must also remember that Jesus was True Man, also. The spirit of God was living 'as a man' in all aspects, including the temptations to go astray. The two, body and soul, were indeed intertwined. But, the strength inherent in the Jesus-God personality permitted Him to resist successfully 100% of the time.

Just because we're human, and limited, let's not place that template onto God - who is so much more than we will ever know here. It IS a very difficult concept, because the infinite is being described in a finite way... Just like God's answer to Moses, "I am". Trying to tell Moses everything He is, briefly, is sadly impossible - so a label is used.
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  Yoda55
silverglass
Replied to:  Silverglass wrote: "In one of your earlier posts you stated the...
He listed off four contributing aspects of loving God - heart, soul, mind, and strength. Now, three of these aspects are physically verifiable characteristics of the body. What about the fourth - soul. What does this mean? Is it quantifiable? The Hebrew leadership understood it to be a facet of the human being. Verses 18-27 Jesus tells the Sadducees that there are souls (spirits, representing each individual, which outlive the body).

I think you and I are talking past each other. I question the idea of necessarily defining a person into separated components. I agree with what you are saying to a certain extent. But I see a united spirit body as being in need of salvation that will ultimately be realized in an eschatological sanctification of both.
Strictly speaking dividing up the spirit body is an interpolation of Greek theology. This is just the kind of thing that lead to heresy. Gnosticism brings the false truth of neo platonic dualism. Ideas that separate and makes the body unable to do what the soul is free to find. That is to unite with God. The body and the world according to Platonic theology are evil predicaments and therefore are not part of an eternal plan. In such a strict interpretation one can point to the idea that the body may sin but the soul remains unaffected being of a much higher state.. This translates to the understanding that the soul will eventfully return to become part of a larger cosmic relationship . This is a pantheistic interpretation and Gnostics among others believe this.
In Christian theism however the body and soul(spirit) or whatever you want to call it is part of an eternal plan and so they are united in an eternal plan together. John 5:28-29 (New International Version) 28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. No such thing is possible for the body in Platonic philosophy concerning eternity.
Anyway I do not think I have answered you competently enough so at this point I will concede to your understanding on this issue.. I am more interested in perusing ideas concerning omniscience and foreknowledge. If you are of such a mind then lets keep our discussion in this arena.
Thanx
Save
Cancel
Reply
replied to:  silverglass
Yoda55
Replied to:  Dear Yoda, In one of your earlier...
Silverglass wrote: "This is not unusual as reformed theology believes that God determines all things. This again is unbiblical. God is seen in the text as a God who changes in relation to people and to attribute to him an unchanging character is unbiblical as far as I can tell when I read the texts. In my last post I tried to show you that Moses was influential in getting god to change his mind about what he was about to do in destroying Israel. God seems not to know something about Israel. That there unbelief would drive him to consider destroying all of them. Did he not know this before he delivered them from Egypt?
Lets take another example for the old testament and see for yourself how you approach the text in terms of bringing beforehand a metaphorical bias. I am just about sure that your belief concerning the foreknowledge issues of what god knows ahead of time will drive you to interpret the text as
anthropomorphic.
So with this in mind let get to the text. Genesis 6:7 King James Bible,
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repented me that I have made them.
Now we have here yet another contingency that does not jive with the idea of “exhaustive definite foreknowledge” (EDF). If god has from eternity past before the foundations of the world a settled understanding of all future contingencies then how is it he regrets making mankind?"

When you've spoken with someone who was in a position as a student, and you wanted to lead the individual through a problem step by step, did you ever "think aloud" to maximize the student's understanding of the underlying reasoning through which you were stepping?

Whenever I see these kinds of passages, I get the impression that we're being permitted a peek into how our behavior affects God's feelings... Not that He necessarily will act out the comments, but that He is showing the depth of discontent it causes - contrary to His plan.

He appears to constantly invite us to see our faults, our current misadventures, and seeks to coax us to mend our thought/speech/behavior threads... His rules are straight-forward and He tries to get us to learn, and ultimately perform without constant supervision...

The recitation of the feelings and intents (if conditions don't improve) hint at knowledge of consequences, both for the act(s) themselves and for the reaction it will draw from Him...

As a parent, I have knowledge of the world which far surpasses my children's. Behaving without complete information on the outcomes to their actions, they make imprudent choices (either obliviously, or purposefully to antagonize). Those which are dangerous I can circumvent, but simpler outcomes I sometimes permit to occur (for their edification)... I occasionally narrate to my wife, so that she has an opportunity to reconcile her thought pattern with mine - helps to prevent the kids from playing one parent against the other.

I view your chosen quoted passage is a narration - but to whom? The angels attendant, perhaps? As God is acting as a parent for human beings (He's called 'Father', after all), it's quite possible He's educating angels as well...

I think it likely He knows infinitely more than we could ever possibly - and more than that for which many are willing to give Him credit.
Save
Cancel
Reply
 
x
OK