ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No open theist would disagree.

Can you expand on that?

Knight, I would answer "yes" to all of your questions if we could add a small tweak,
"Is God always feeling the exact amount of [insert any emotion consistent with God's nature here] from eternity past to eternity future for a given situation?"

God is without passions. Passion implies desire for what one does not have. But God, as an absolutely perfect Being, lacks nothing. To lack something he would have to have a potentiality to have it. But God is Pure Actuality with no potentiality whatsoever. Therefore, God is completely and infinitely satisfied in his own perfection.

However, to say that God is impassable in the sense that he has no passions or cravings for fulfillment is not to say that he has no feelings. God is a jealous God (among other things). God feels anger at sin and rejoices in righteousness. But God’s feelings are unchanging. He always, unchangingly, feels the same sense of anger at sin. He never ceases to rejoice in goodness and lightness. Thus, God has no changing passions, but he does have unchanging feelings. God is always consistently the same in ALL of His feelings. His feelings are constant for what He feels.

I went into this at some length in another thread here

 

[Stripe]

Stipe is on my ignore list, so I did not see this. I note that later he demurs to answer you since he is having a simple question contest. That figures. I don't think he has ever strung together more than one or two complete sentences in any post.

:bannana:
AMR and Allsmiles both have me on ignore. That explains everything.

Delmar, I'm afraid you'll have to ask him.

 

[Evoken]

Did I miss something? When did you become a Christian? Or are you referring to some other god?

I've been struggling with this issue for several months now and am on my way towards full reconciliation with The Church. I am not referring to some other god.


Evo

 

[themuzicman]

Muz. AMR addressed your questions here, so at risk of repeating I defere: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1479727#post1479727

Of course, I answered him here

 

[Delmar]

AMR: Do you trust God?

 

[Clete]

God is without passions. Passion implies desire for what one does not have. But God, as an absolutely perfect Being, lacks nothing. To lack something he would have to have a potentiality to have it. But God is Pure Actuality with no potentiality whatsoever. Therefore, God is completely and infinitely satisfied in his own perfection.

However, to say that God is impassable in the sense that he has no passions or cravings for fulfillment is not to say that he has no feelings. God is a jealous God (among other things). God feels anger at sin and rejoices in righteousness. But God’s feelings are unchanging. He always, unchangingly, feels the same sense of anger at sin. He never ceases to rejoice in goodness and lightness. Thus, God has no changing passions, but he does have unchanging feelings. God is always consistently the same in ALL of His feelings. His feelings are constant for what He feels.

Note the complete lack of substantiation of this claim. As usual, its just tossed out there for us to either accept or reject on the basis of AMR having said it.

1. The word "passion" does not imply a desire for what one does not have.
There are particular passions that probably imply that but the word passion itself does not.

2. Satisfaction, especially when it is "complete and infinite" could rightly be considered a passion and yet AMR here ascribes such bliss to God without even realizing his having contradicted himself. (But that's primarily because he didn't write it.)

3. The Bible is filled from beginning to end with passages concerning God's desire for people to repent and return to Him (Israel in particular). And so it would seem that even if AMR's odd definition of 'passion' were correct, his position would be inconsistent with the plain reading of Scripture as it would seem there are relationships with people that God desires but does not have.

4. "Pure Actuality" is a Greek concept that is completely foreign to the Bible. Before Aquinas (and Augustin before him), both Catholics by the way, there was no such doctrine.

5. AMR likes to quote sources without citing them. The entire quotation above was taken verbatim from The Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.

There is actually more here I could comment on but I'm out of time for now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

hmm, so MUCH meaning in one-liners....I'll have to rethink the fortune-cookie deal.

:chuckle:

"Man without butter not know he not enjoy popcorn."

 

[Stripe]

I don't understand what AMR has against short posts. Any guesses?

I would dearly like to know what substantiation there is for believing that perfection necessitates no change. I, not so long ago, would have told you the same thing. I struggle to remember even why I would have said such things. Perhaps because I was adverse to change on a personal level.

The idea that someone perfect couldn't change because that would mean they either became less perfect (not an option for God) or more perfect (not an option for anyone) still sounds reasonable, which seems strange. I've rejected it largely on the basis that people have solid arguments that align with a clear reading of the bible. When the bible says God changed it's much easier to imagine that somehow my thinking is wrong than to imagine the bible is hard to understand.

To me it is very important that the bible be accessible.

Any given story should be easily summed up in a few short statements. Questions should be simple to answer.

I don't understand what AMR has against short posts.

 

[Delmar]

I don't understand what AMR has against short posts. Any guesses?

He doesn't get up to speed until the 3rd or 4th paragraph, so it is no surprise that he does not value making a concise point. It is not evil, by the way, to be long winded! It can, however, be boring!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I don't understand what AMR has against short posts. Any guesses?

It isn't possible to obfuscate and sound "scholarly" in less than 16 long sentences.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

5. AMR likes to quote sources without citing them. The entire quotation above was taken verbatim from The Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.

Uh oh... do we have another "logosX" on our hands? :nono:

AMR that tactic is highly frowned upon here at TOL.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God is without passions.

You and I will never be able to see eye to eye when you make statements like that.

The God of the Bible is passionate. He is loving, He is vengeful, He is merciful. He gets angry! He is a jealous God. He can also be patient, and He is capable of relenting.

The God of the Bible is a living God.

The god you describe is like a stone idol. Impassionate, impassible, immutable..... impossible!

 

[Delmar]

Uh oh... do we have another "logosX" on our hands? :nono:

AMR that tactic is highly frowned upon here at TOL.

Don't they have a word for that? I think they call it plagiarism.

 

[Stripe]

He doesn't get up to speed until the 3rd or 4th paragraph, so it is no surprise that he does not value making a concise point. It is not evil, by the way, to be long winded! It can, however, be boring!

I'm a sucker for a well worded piece of literature. If it's well written and defensible, as Calvanism is (even if only because of it's place in history), then I do not mind reading 160 long winded sentences.

But let's face facts - there are many people who do not have the capacity or willingness to read (or listen) to everything the English language has to offer packed into every sentence. Nobody can escape simple truths though.

PS: I added to that last post of mine..

 

[Philetus]

Note the complete lack of substantiation of this claim. As usual, its just tossed out there for us to either accept or reject on the basis of AMR having said it.

1. The word "passion" does not imply a desire for what one does not have.
There are particular passions that probably imply that but the word passion itself does not.

2. Satisfaction, especially when it is "complete and infinite" could rightly be considered a passion and yet AMR here ascribes such bliss to God without even realizing his having contradicted himself. (But that's primarily because he didn't write it.)

3. The Bible is filled from beginning to end with passages concerning God's desire for people to repent and return to Him (Israel in particular). And so it would seem that even if AMR's odd definition of 'passion' were correct, his position would be inconsistent with the plain reading of Scripture as it would seem there are relationships with people that God desires but does not have.

4. "Pure Actuality" is a Greek concept that is completely foreign to the Bible. Before Aquinas (and Augustin before him), both Catholics by the way, there was no such doctrine.

5. AMR likes to quote sources without citing them. The entire quotation above was taken verbatim from The Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.

There is actually more here I could comment on but I'm out of time for now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Interesting that the story of Jesus Christ’s suffering is often referred to as The Passion long before Mel Gibson.

Maybe if AMR would provide a link to the Unabridged Calvin Dictionary so we could interpret/translate his use of ordinary words sow wee cud r-e-a-d mour clearlee, it would save us all … er, I mean da elect ... some time.

Honestly, jousting with a Calvinist over the particulars they use to justify their misunderstanding of God is a total waste of time. Just acknowledging God is dynamic and relational is more than they can handle. They have created a maze they cannot escape.

Good work Clete.

 

[themuzicman]

Finish this proverb:

"When there are many words....."

 

[Philetus]

You and I will never be able to see eye to eye when you make statements like that.

The God of the Bible is passionate. He is loving, He is vengeful, He is merciful. He gets angry! He is a jealous God. He can also be patient, and He is capable of relenting.

The God of the Bible is a living God.

The god you describe is like a stone idol. Impassionate, impassible, immutable..... impossible!

It really is that simple. There is a short post that says more than I have ever r-e-a-d (or written or pasted) in 1600 sentences.

:think:
I wonder how the Unabridged Calvin Dictionary defines plagiarism.

 

[Philetus]

Finish this proverb:

"When there are many words....."

.... sentences are longer/complete. ?????


NO!

I Got it. .... everybody hast to -r-e-r-e-a-d everything twice.

 

[Delmar]

Finish this proverb:

"When there are many words....."

... sin is not lacking,
But he who restrains his lips is wise.

















Pro 10:19



.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I've been struggling with this issue for several months now and am on my way towards full reconciliation with The Church. I am not referring to some other god.

Interesting.

Thanks for the "heads up".