BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

[Clete]

Don't use your side so generally, Clete. At least one of your side was honest enough to point out the problem and not all of my side really even cares about the problem.

Furthermore, the whole use of the our side and my side vocabulary further solidifies the notion that this debate was never really gonna go anywhere as nobody can obviously see past their own bias (mine included).

To have expected otherwise is naive, at least speaking generally it is. There are those who are intellectually honest who will be swayed by the truth and those who were already convinced on the issue will have opportunity to learn more powerful arguments to convince others in the future. Any expectations beyond this are wishful thinking at best.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[jhodgeiii]

MyshrallBayou

MyshrallBayou

MyshrallBayou,

Why do you make these drive-by comments, which are thoughtfully refuted, and never come back to reason? Do you think we here at ToL should take your word as gospel? There's a word for those who make comments and don't have the courage to back them up.

That being said, your latest post in the Critique Thread here defines an interesting word:

Eisegesis is the approach to Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to 'force' the Bible to mean something that fits their existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine.

Since Sam Lamerson seems to want to avoid specifics here, perhaps you'd like to tell us why Jesus said the following in His omniscience:

• “There are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
• “I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”

Do you believe that some who were standing there are still alive today? Or can you make a case that Jesus has already returned? How about the ubiquitous "Jesus didn't mean what we all thought he did" excuse without telling us what he indeed meant?

Be brave. Let us all hear your exegesis on Jesus' words here.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Greek mythology <> Greek philosophy

Greek mythology <> Greek philosophy

I just have to wonder....
The foundation of Greek theology would seem to infer that the [Greek] gods didn't have foreknowledge of events...

RobE, as your quote is part of a comment on BR X, I'll suggest that I think you're confusing Greek mythology with platonic philosophy.

I've never argued that Augustine compromised Christianity with Greek "mythology." I think that's what your assuming here. He compromised Christianity with neo-platonic immutability and timelessness.

Augustine then morphed those ideas back into the Greek fatalism that did and still does hold such influence over the masses.

Plato himself outwardly rejected such fatalism, and the absurdity of Mt. Olympus. However, just like Arminians today who reject Calvinism and yet frequently speak in Calvinist terms, while he despised fatalism, he introduced the world to a divinity that was unchangeable in anyway. Thus he unwittingly provided a philosophical underpinning for the very worldview he despised (though it had deeply affected him also).

Thanks, -Bob

 

[RobE]

Thanks for your reply...

Thanks for your reply...

RobE, as your quote is part of a comment on BR X, I'll suggest that I think you're confusing Greek mythology with platonic philosophy.

I've never argued that Augustine compromised Christianity with Greek "mythology." I think that's what your assuming here. He compromised Christianity with neo-platonic immutability and timelessness.

Augustine then morphed those ideas back into the Greek fatalism that did and still does hold such influence over the masses.

Plato himself outwardly rejected such fatalism, and the absurdity of Mt. Olympus. However, just like Arminians today who reject Calvinism and yet frequently speak in Calvinist terms, while he despised fatalism, he introduced the world to a divinity that was unchangeable in anyway. Thus he unwittingly provided a philosophical underpinning for the very worldview he despised (though it had deeply affected him also).

Thanks, -Bob

I appreciate the fact that you caught my shift from Greek philosophy to Greek mythology. I was simply trying to spark a debate as to how an 'Open View' god is different from the gods as they are portrayed in Greek mythology. I truly didn't mean to misrepresent what you were saying in the debate even though my original post on this did say, and reference, Greek mythology. My apologies. I would; however, still like to know how an 'open view' Jesus is different from say a zeus. This question has been plagueing me ever since round 2. I'm sincerely trying to tie the 'open view' with how I perceive the Lord.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Psalm 139: 3rd Stanza

Psalm 139: 3rd Stanza

Dear Enyartites:

Bob's "exegesis" of Psalm 139:16 was a very painfully classical example of EISEGESIS.

Myshrall, Is the third stanza of Psalm 139 about the development of the baby in the womb?

Thanks, -Bob

 

[Bob Enyart]

Zeus and the Open View

Zeus and the Open View

I would... still like to know how an 'open view' Jesus is different from say a zeus.

Mythology: The Greek gods showed partiality. They inflicted suffering on people without cause. They had no semblance of a just and wise counsel. They were self-centered. They were the invention of a darkened culture. (However, much of Greek mythology is a twist, that is, a perversion, of actual history as reported accurately in Scripture.)

Scripture: The God of the Bible is insulted by the accusation that He shows partiality. And He only wills for good to all His creatures. (The vast majority of the early Christian church fathers prior to Augustine agreed with this next sentence.) It is the will of those creatures (humans and angels) that determines whether they freely accept God's goodness toward them, or endure His judgment.

 

[Clete]

(The vast majority of the early Christian church fatheres prior to Augustine agreed with this next sentence.) It is the will of those creatures (humans and angels) that determines whether they freely accept God's goodness toward them, or endure His judgment.

Ezekiel 18:30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!”​

 

[RobE]

Didn't God choose Saul of Tarsus, Abraham, Jacob, and Job. Esau might not like his impartiality since Jacob was chosen over and above. John, the apostle, whom he loved.

Job might be a problem in "accessory to inflicting suffering'.

 

[defcon]

My “membership” in TOL has been brief. I joined August 1, 2005, for the express purpose of following Battle Royale X. At that time, I had never met nor communicated with either Mr. Bob Enyart or Dr. Sam Lamerson.

I had a high interested in monitoring the “clash” of this particular debate because -- although I had been familiar with Calvinistic theology for a number of years -- I knew almost nothing about the doctrine and practice of those who proclaim “Open Theology.” And I was eager to examine their views. Moreover, having no historical/background information regarding TOL (and specifically no idea of the connection between the site and Bob Enyart), I assumed it was a “neutral” forum -- where the Battle Royale X and resultant dialogue would take place under clear, evenhanded rules, enforced by impartial and dispassionate moderators.

I couldn’t have been more wrong!

Today, having read Knight’s new interpretation of the BR X “word count” regulation, which was agreed to by all parties before the debate commenced -- and having reviewed the myriad of subsequent rationalization/validation for this dishonorable last-minute, sleight-of-hand maneuver -- I am removing my name from the TOL membership list.

I’m ashamed that it was ever listed there.

M. K. Nawojski

Sorry to see ya go.... This is the first time I've encountered this at TOL, so hopefully it is just an isolated event :sigh:

 

[geoff]

Sorry to see ya go.... This is the first time I've encountered this at TOL, so hopefully it is just an isolated event :sigh:

HAHAHAHAAH

:hammer:


RobE has a good point whhich Enyart failed to answer.

More importantly though, how is the OV god any different to baal or any other of the older testament gods?

Temporal, non omniscient, etc etc..

No difference at all.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

My “membership” in TOL has been brief. I joined August 1, 2005, for the express purpose of following Battle Royale X. At that time, I had never met nor communicated with either Mr. Bob Enyart or Dr. Sam Lamerson.

I had a high interested in monitoring the “clash” of this particular debate because -- although I had been familiar with Calvinistic theology for a number of years -- I knew almost nothing about the doctrine and practice of those who proclaim “Open Theology.” And I was eager to examine their views. Moreover, having no historical/background information regarding TOL (and specifically no idea of the connection between the site and Bob Enyart), I assumed it was a “neutral” forum -- where the Battle Royale X and resultant dialogue would take place under clear, evenhanded rules, enforced by impartial and dispassionate moderators.

I couldn’t have been more wrong!

Today, having read Knight’s new interpretation of the BR X “word count” regulation, which was agreed to by all parties before the debate commenced -- and having reviewed the myriad of subsequent rationalization/validation for this dishonorable last-minute, sleight-of-hand maneuver -- I am removing my name from the TOL membership list.

I’m ashamed that it was ever listed there.

M. K. Nawojski

Uhm, let me guess.... I don't suppose I offended you when I cut Sam serious slack in round 9?

:wave2:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Sorry to see ya go.... This is the first time I've encountered this at TOL, so hopefully it is just an isolated event :sigh:

"this"?

Being fair is "this"????

Look, if you don't like TOL don't let the door hit....

 

[Delmar]

Here is the deal. I sort of agree with Right Idea and defcon and yet. Sam said nothing of substance in rounds 6, 7 and 8 Then in round 9 when Sam realizes Bob has spent his allotted word count then and only then does he start making bold assertions! This left Bob with two choices .
1 Blow past the word count and refute what Sam said in round 9( bad choice).
2 Allow the garbage Sam posted in round 9 to stand unchallenged by the truth (worse choice).

 

[Clete]

HAHAHAHAAH

:hammer:


RobE has a good point whhich Enyart failed to answer.

More importantly though, how is the OV god any different to baal or any other of the older testament gods?

Temporal, non omniscient, etc etc..

No difference at all.

For starters, besides being holy, just and good, the "OV God", as you so eloquently call Him, actually exists.

 

[RobE]

For starters, besides being holy, just and good, the "OV God", as you so eloquently call Him, actually exists.

:think:

Didn't the followers of Zeus kinda think he was holy, just, and good. For sure they believed he existed; otherwise, the wouldn't have had temples, festivals, etc....

When bad things happened to them they probably though Zeus was punishing them in some way. Don't ya think?

 

[Balder]

Perfectly put! Bob's asserts here that the closed view relies on pagan theology even though I believe that Zeus's personality would more closely resemble an OV position. All truth flows from God. It's the perversion of this truth that makes false religions dangerous. As one theologian put it, "the best deception has 99% truth mixed with 1% poison". This is just as deadly. Don't throw out the truth just because you've identified the 'poison'. Thank you for your insight. This is a weak argument. I wonder how many words were spent on this?

I agree, and have commented elsewhere, that it is kind of ironic that Bob, in trying to purge the influence of "high pagan" thought from Christianity, is insisting on a portrait of God that is much closer to the "low pagan" model of deity.

This does not mean that he is actually drawing on low pagan ideas; only that he is insisting on an understanding that is common to many mythologically based cultures around the world, the early Hebrew culture among them.

And as I pointed out, it is fairly certain that the early Hebrews were also influenced by their pagan neighbors. This shows up pretty clearly in early Hebrew cosmological notions, for instance.

 

[Clete]

You guys are missing the point! Good greif people! Is it really this difficult to follow someone's very simple train of thought?

Bob doesn't attack Greek influence based merely on the fact that it is Greek but attacks it because it is not Biblical. He has never denied that the Greek gods happen to have some attributes that are similar to the true and living God of the Bible, in fact it would be impossible for this not to be the case regardless of what Bob believed. What he has denied is that the God of the Bible is immutable, immpassible, etc and that the reason why Christians believe such things about God isn't because it's Biblical but because of the influence that Plato had on Augustine.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

:think:

Didn't the followers of Zeus kinda think he was holy, just, and good. For sure they believed he existed; otherwise, the wouldn't have had temples, festivals, etc....

When bad things happened to them they probably though Zeus was punishing them in some way. Don't ya think?

It makes no difference what they believed, that wasn't the point. The point was that in spite of their belief, Zeus has never existed and therefore has never been holy, just or good.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

You guys are missing the point! Good greif people! Is it really this difficult to follow someone's very simple train of thought?

Bob doesn't attack Greek influence based merely on the fact that it is Greek but attacks it because it is not Biblical. He has never denied that the Greek gods happen to have some attributes that are similar to the true and living God of the Bible, in fact it would be impossible for this not to be the case regardless of what Bob believed. What he has denied is that the God of the Bible is immutable, immpassible, etc and that the reason why Christians believe such things about God isn't because it's Biblical but because of the influence that Plato had on Augustine.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete,

I've been interested in following Sam's defense of the notions of immutability, etc, because I agree that many depictions of God in the Bible appear to reflect an entity more like the one Bob is describing -- temporally situated, relational, capable of making mistakes or repenting, and so on. In some contexts, I have also challenged Christians who argue for Augustinian concepts of God with examples from scripture which present the image of a more anthropomorphic (and frankly "limited") deity.

If you see Biblical thought as part of the great overall sweep of human thought, subject to the same forces of development and revision and cross-pollination as all other fields of knowledge and understanding, then it does not strike me as necessarily problematic that a particular tradition moves away from earlier, simpler, more anthropomorphic models of deity to fuller, more radically challenging understandings. You see a similar progression in many cultures and religious traditions. So, even if Christian thought was influenced by Greek thought in certain areas, such that its notion of deity was refined, taking it even beyond what earlier Biblical models conveyed, I don't see that as problematic -- unless you insist on an ethnocentric perspective which says the only valid understanding must come from Hebrew minds, and must be checked against whatever previous Hebrew minds have said.

In another thread, I talked to you about the issue of time. I think this is something that needs to be worked out in more detail in OV thought. I see some merit to some of the OV perspective -- I like and respect the idea of the fundamental creative openness of reality. I just think Bob may go too far in trying to promote a particular, "common sense" model of temporality, rejecting the whole of Greek ideas about timelessness, etc. As I pointed out, timelessness may not be opposed to temporality, but a necessary ground for it:

This is clearly a logical problem: In an infinite series of points, where the "now" is understood as any discrete point along an infinite line, with an infinite history of previous "nows" leading up to it, it seems it would impossible to ever be able to "arrive" at any point, because every point has an infinite history of previous "nows" which cannot be exhausted or completely unfolded. If you reflect on this, it suggests that perhaps there is something about "nowness" or "presence" that transcends (and includes) the linear, past-to-future unfolding of moments in time.

If you begin to grasp this and what it means ("eternity in our hearts"?), you may also begin to grasp what is meant by "unchanging" in mystical and pagan philosophy. This is not opposed to linear, "in time" activity: it is the necessary foundation for it.

In my conversation with Philosophizer on the "Open View Time" thread, I tried to ask some questions that would help us explore this more, but unfortunately he dropped out of the conversation and it went no further.

 

[Clete]

Clete,

I've been interested in following Sam's defense of the notions of immutability, etc, because I agree that many depictions of God in the Bible appear to reflect an entity more like the one Bob is describing -- temporally situated, relational, capable of making mistakes or repenting, and so on. In some contexts, I have also challenged Christians who argue for Augustinian concepts of God with examples from scripture, which present the image of a more anthropomorphic (and frankly "limited") deity.

If you see Biblical thought as part of the great overall sweep of human thought, subject to the same forces of development and revision and cross-pollination as all other fields of knowledge and understanding, then it does not strike me as necessarily problematic that a particular tradition moves away from earlier, simpler, more anthropomorphic models of deity to fuller, more radically challenging understandings. You see a similar progression in many cultures and religious traditions. So, even if Christian thought was influenced by Greek thought in certain areas, such that its notion of deity was refined, taking it even beyond what earlier Biblical models conveyed, I don't see that as problematic -- unless you insist on an ethnocentric perspective which says the only valid understanding must come from Hebrew minds, and must be checked against whatever previous Hebrew minds have said.

It's not about Hebrew thought; it's about God's thought. The Bible is of divine origin not human (Hebrew or otherwise). Thus it is the bedrock of all things theological, thus if any system of thought, Hebrew, Greek or whatever is found to be in conflict with it, that system of thought must be discarded in favor of that which is demonstrably Biblical.

In another thread, I talked to you about the issue of time. I think this is something that needs to be worked out in more detail in OV thought. I see some merit to some of the OV perspective -- I like and respect the idea of the fundamental creative openness of reality. I just think Bob may go too far in trying to promote a particular, "common sense" model of temporality, rejecting the whole of Greek ideas about timelessness, etc. As I pointed out, timelessness may not be opposed to temporality, but a necessary ground for it:


In my conversation with Philosophizer on the "Open View Time" thread, I tried to ask some questions that would help us explore this more, but unfortunately he dropped out of the conversation and it went no further.

I would not be apposed to exploring the issue with you. I believe that our theologies must be of sound reason and so if you can show me, either here or on the other thread, how time is dependent upon timelessness for its coherence, then I would be interested to read what you have to say.

Resting in Him,
Clete