ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

Goodness is wholeness or perfection of being and is therefore objective.

Evil is what ought to exist by something's nature and is subjective.

So goodness is not a subjective relationship like evil. Also gooness can exist without evil.

This is how we know God is good because he is the most perfect of being.

Now I'll admit that what we can say about God is limited in either an anological way or that or language to express god is limited, but nonetheless human reason, which is what these argumnents are based on and what God gave us to know him by can say something about God's nature.

And if through reading Scripture, we see God commit an act that we know is evil, then we have to understand that act in terms of our reason why it is only incidentally evil.

One word....

Unfalsifiable.


Your entire worldview is meaningless because it is utterly unfalsifiable. There is no such thing as "human reason".

 

[Philetus]

I don't see how any of this is responsive to the question I asked.

The point was basically that I think you are getting hung up on the terms good and evil and missing the point that the dilemma is about the concepts not the terms. God is either righteous or He is not, He has either always been righteous or He is not righteous at all. For the purposes of Euthyphro's Dilemma the terms 'good' and 'righteous' are interchangeable.

If you suggest that in relation to God the term 'righteous' has no meaning then you have only taken one horn of the dilemma and resolved nothing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I just don't see it that way. God is righteous and that's it! Period. Nota. Zip. End.
ONLY in relationship to God does it have meaning. Not because God says, I'm righteous, but precisely because God is righteous.

Its about WHO, Clete …. not what.

 

[Clete]

ya... like there's a big difference between the a term and a concept.

You really are stupid aren't you. Why are you even here if you aren't even going to try to think things through?

The same concept can be communicated often with several completely different words, thus words and concepts are not the same thing at all. Words are tools used to convey concepts. The word 'electricity' isn't what flows down a copper wire, electricity is. If you can't get that, I can't help you.

He only acts emotional because he cannot present an argument of his own and think for himself.

Yeah, ask anyone. I've got to be the least substantive boob to ever grace the TOL forum. I hardly ever spend any time at all developing complex and lengthy arguments against anyone on any issue. I might as well be a wart on TOL's backside for all anyone gets from reading my posts. Don't bother doing a search for my previous posts. They're all just a endless string of stupid and insulting one liners that you would probably not be interested in.



How come I am the one who always attracts these goof balls? :bang:

 

[Clete]

I just don't see it that way. God is righteous and that's it! Period. Nota. Zip. End.
ONLY in relationship to God does it have meaning. Not because God says, I'm righteous, but precisely because God is righteous.

Its about WHO, Clete …. not what.

You've just stated Bob Enyart's argument in a nutshell. God, in relationship within the Trinity, each member always, throughout eternity past, acting in the other's best interests.

 

[Nang]

There just might be a second round, after all.

And in this corner, weighing in with sticks and stones ...


Oh, come on. And play.

Right now he is calling my bluff.

You will get a turn.

No, I will not "play" with Clete.

He is a bad person and only desires to inflict hurt and harm.

Nang

 

[Philetus]

You really are stupid aren't you. Why are you even here if you aren't even going to try to think things through?

The same concept can be communicated often with several completely different words, thus words and concepts are not the same thing at all. Words are tools used to convey concepts. The word 'electricity' isn't what flows down a copper wire, electricity is. If you can't get that, I can't help you.


Yeah, ask anyone. I've got to be the least substantive boob to ever grace the TOL forum. I hardly ever spend any time at all developing complex and lengthy arguments against anyone on any issue. I might as well be a wart on TOL's backside for all anyone gets from reading my posts. Don't bother doing a search for my previous posts. There all just a endless string of insulting one liners that you would probably not be interested in.



How come I am the one who always attracts these goof balls? :bang:

I've never seen you insult anyone with less than three really good evil lines.:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:

What the hell were we talking about before you guys changed th game to red-rover?

I'm here by banning myself for a whole friken weak.

 

[Clete]

No, I will not "play" with Clete.

He is a bad person and only desires to inflict hurt and harm.

Nang

You don't know what you're talking about. John 7:24

 

[Nang]

You don't know what you're talking about. John 7:24

I judge you with righteous judgment.

Your views are wrong, and your tactics are wrong, because your heart is wrong.

Nang

 

[Philetus]

You've just stated Bob Enyart's argument in a nutshell. God, in relationship within the Trinity, each member always, throughout eternity past, acting in the other's best interests.

I said I didn't think Bob was wrong ... but that his argument (as defined by Greek philosophy on the question of morality was WEAK. It aint about WHAT God is it is about WHO GOD is.

BALANCE< RELATIONSHIP>goooooooooooood

I knew we were on the same page from the beginning. I just wish the hell I could bait and swich once in a while.

Thanks for the bullett Johny .... I'm going to go shoot myself.

 

[Clete]

I judge you with righteous judgment.

Your views are wrong, and your tactics are wrong, because your heart is wrong.

Nang

You don't know nor even care about the condition of my heart and you judge my current tactics on the basis of the way I've treated one idiot who wants to call his mere disagreement with an argument that he didn't even bother to read a refutation of it. He's a waste of time and a liar and thinks that there is no appreciable difference between a word and a concept (i.e he's an idiot).

As far as my views being wrong, you claim that they can be easily be put down. I'm not the only Open Theist on this website but not only will you not engage me but you won't engage any open theist on this site. Acts 9 Dispensational Open Theism is THE only rational theological worldview and I, as well as several others here on TOL, am happy to debate anyone who says otherwise at any time. And it has become my practice to do everything I know how to do to keep such debates dispassionate and respectful so as to keep as many Calvinists around here as possible as is evidenced by any number of my recent debates all of which are still easily available for all to read. But I do not and will not suffer fools lightly. I'm not here to be friends with stupid people who are only here to waste everyone's time. If you don't like that fine, get over it or leave, I don't care which.

 

[Clete]

I said I didn't think Bob was wrong ... but that his argument (as defined by Greek philosophy on the question of morality was WEAK. It aint about WHAT God is it is about WHO GOD is.

In what way is it weak? You just restated the exact same argument. The only difference is that Bob answers the dilemma within the philosophical context of the dilemma itself - a perfectly valid thing to do when you are in the middle of a debate with an atheist - while you address it more from a strictly Christian theological context, which an atheist would have no hope of understanding in the slightest.

BALANCE< RELATIONSHIP>goooooooooooood

I knew we were on the same page from the beginning. I just wish the hell I could bait and swich once in a while.

Thanks for the bullett Johny .... I'm going to go shoot myself.

:thumb:

On that note, I'm off to bed! :yawn:

 

[Johnny Boy]

Clete, that's why we have different terms for different concepts and why I said Enyart needs to define his terms. do-do bird! You really looked stupid when you said "there's no such thing as human reason." Why are we made in God's image? Because we have a reasoning soul.

Philiteus, all these terms convey concepts and meaning to human reason; righteousness, goodness, evil are not just empty words beyond reason. Go look up the words in a dictioanry if you don't believe me.

Mabe you should shot yourself.

 

[Nang]

You don't know nor even care about the condition of my heart

You told my husband you hated him. No Christian talks that way to another Christian.

and you judge my current tactics on the basis of the way I've treated one idiot who wants to call his mere disagreement with an argument that he didn't even bother to read a refutation of it. He's a waste of time and a liar and thinks that there is no appreciable difference between a word and a concept (i.e he's an idiot).

Jesus Christ never resorted to calling others "idiots." You should not do so, either.

As far as my views being wrong, you claim that they can be easily be put down. I'm not the only Open Theist on this website but not only will you not engage me but you won't engage any open theist on this site.

I have only been on this forum for a couple of hours. How could I theologically engage you yet, even if I wanted. But I do not want. OVT'ers do not listen to reason. They function by throwing their weight and calling other people "idiots." I do not care to engage hateful persons who use epithets to (supposedly) win arguments.

Acts 9 Dispensational Open Theism is THE only rational theological worldview

Bah . . .

I'm not here to be friends with stupid people who are only here to waste everyone's time.

And I am not so stupid that I would waste my time letting you tell me I am an idiot, in lieu of decent hermeneutics.

If you don't like that fine, get over it or leave, I don't care which.

Just letting you know that you have gained a reputation online, and others here, suffering your verbal attacks should know, that others have learned, you are nothing but an egotistical, foul-mouthed, paper tiger, teaching a false gospel.



Nang

 

[godrulz]

Nang: Who is your husband?

I agree with Clete on Open Theism, but would disagree that Acts 9 is the only coherent dispensational view.

 

[Philetus]

Clete, that's why we have different terms for different concepts and why I said Enyart needs to define his terms. do-do bird! You really looked stupid when you said "there's no such thing as human reason." Why are we made in God's image? Because we have a reasoning soul.

Philiteus, all these terms convey concepts and meaning to human reason; righteousness, goodness, evil are not just empty words beyond reason. Go look up the words in a dictioanry if you don't believe me.

Mabe you should shot yourself.

I think you meant shoot ... words do have meaning.

Defining God on the terms/concepts of morality as they have meaning to humans is pointless/meaningless. I didn't say the words themselves are meaningless.

Nor did I say that good and evil don't exist. I said that is the mess we made; it is a self created dilemma. It isn’t God’s problem, its ours. And figuring it out(who is good and who is evil) won’t solve it. God’s solution is the cross. So is GRACE good or evil? Depends on whether your talking to a Calvinist, an Armenian or an Open Theist, and then split those seven ways from Sunday. Is grace cheep? It is if you place any price on it at all. God paid dearly to continue a relationship with us, and his solution has nothing at all to do with good and evil.

What is good and what is evil has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, no relevance at all to who God is. Good and evil is a dilemma we created for ourselves. To persist in it is to remain outside of any relationship with God. Only the righteousness of Christ Jesus exceeds that of the Pharisees simply because of who He IS. Our knowledge of good and evil must go to the cross or we kill ourselves and each other and continue crucifying Christ. I would that Open Theists would follow their own advice and take the implications of just who God is to the complete conclusion rather than stopping short to preserve their little saws about who is good and who is evil.

 

[Philetus]

Nang: Who is your husband?

I agree with Clete on Open Theism, but would disagree that Acts 9 is the only coherent dispensational view.

Yeah, I'm with GR (on the above at least.)




I also think if you guys would just let Clete rant and not retaliate in like fashion, it wouldn't amount to much.

Hey, ani't that about da same question Jesus asked the woman at the well?
Is this going somewhere theological GR?:crackup:

 

[Philetus]

I don't see how any of this is responsive to the question I asked.

The point was basically that I think you are getting hung up on the terms good and evil and missing the point that the dilemma is about the concepts not the terms. God is either righteous or He is not, He has either always been righteous or He is not righteous at all. For the purposes of Euthyphro's Dilemma the terms 'good' and 'righteous' are interchangeable.

If you suggest that in relation to God the term 'righteous' has no meaning then you have only taken one horn of the dilemma and resolved nothing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The less religous verson of Genesis:

And thus spake the Lord God ... again, "Adam! You eat one apple and you think you know everything!"



God is either God or God is not. Who are we to define God by our ill gotten knowledge of good and evil, and just where do we get our definition of Righteousness anyway? From a Bible dictionary or a FunkinWagner? And who wrote those? The only way to define anything is in right relationship with our creator, not by comparing apples and oranges.

I'll try this one more time: Understanding good an evil is not the route to knowing God.

We knew God without the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil cost us the intimacy that afforded us the knowledge of God. The knowledge of good and evil brought the sentence of death. We can only know God again through the righteousness (rightness, balance, union, right relatlionship)that comes by grace through faith.

Joh 17:3 - Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Our knowledge of good and evil may or may not help us live in a good way ... but it won't solve the relational problem we have with our creator. Our knowledge of the creator through Jesus Christ solves BOTH.

The weakness in arguing for a knowledge of God based on morality is that God is NOT trying to solve our problem/dilemma with good and evil. God is trying to win us back into relationship; to give us back our life. That solves everything.

Knowing God isn't about knowing who to bash as evil or who to vote for as good. That might make us feel like a righteous people, but it does not get us any closer to God.


Done
:grave:

 

[patman]

I judge you with righteous judgment.

Your views are wrong, and your tactics are wrong, because your heart is wrong.

Nang

I have been chatting with Clete for a while and don't find his heart to be in the wrong place. But since when does that make someone's views wrong? If you have a problem with Clete, that's one thing, but what is your issue with OV or Clete's other beliefs?

Haven't you ever read the Bible and not have a million questions arise? Did you ever think many of those questions may subside if you took the "utter future knowledge of God" assumption away from reading the Bible?

 

[Johnny Boy]

Philetus, you sound like Clete and Enyart trying to argue about physics and time and everything else to try to justify your point of view.

You said specifically that these words have no meaning when they are describing a God above our reason. It is sure mentioned enough time in Scripture that God is good and righteous. Do you think the authors were just inventing the terms or applying what they know in human terms to be righteous and good to God.

You sound like the Muslims; God transcending all reason and therefore you can do anything in the name of God.

It's a bunch of double talk and empty latitudes like Hitler used to belch. That way you can read into it whatever you want.

 

[Philetus]

I have been chatting with Clete for a while and don't find his heart to be in the wrong place. But since when does that make someone's views wrong? If you have a problem with Clete, that's one thing, but what is your issue with OV or Clete's other beliefs?

Haven't you ever read the Bible and not have a million questions arise? Did you ever think many of those questions may subside if you took the "utter future knowledge of God" assumption away from reading the Bible?

Well said, Patman.:thumb:

The flesh is easy to attack. Lets, explore the possibilities of an Open Future and leave the heart as a matter for God.