:first:Originally posted by YorzhikDidn't you just say logic and science are not neutral? But then you turn around make a claim about *IF* scientists evaluated evolution in the same way -- what way is that? The "neutral" way? Or the evolutionistic way?
There isn't a neutral way, I just agreed with you. But whatever way they evaluate, if they are consistent, they would either lose their job as scientists due to gross errors or they would not believe in evolution.
What is false?
That I presupposed the open view. Before I presupposed the open view, I did not think the OV was correct. Then I evaluated the claims made by the OV the same way I evaluate claims made in any history/reference/instruction book. In other words, I decided to start being consistent. This was at a time I presupposed a view that is the same as your view now.
Also, it is false that my statement should lead you to believe I need to get out more.
I didn't say it was. Presuppositions change, as have yours. You now have an OV filter in place, through which you evaluate all truth claims.
Yes, but the OV filter is correct. Your non-OV filter is incorrect. I know this because I am consistent with my evaluations of truth claims, and because my non-OV filter was in place when I evaluated the truth of the OV claim.
OK, so what is Paul praying for?
That God give wisdom to some brothers in Christ.
Is he praying that God would give wisdom to those asking for it? But aren't those people already asking for it? And if God is already doing everything He can think of to draw all men to Himself, would He already know this before being asked, and give it accordingly?
Not necessarily. If you know of a number of needs that should be taken care of in your organization, but the people in charge of taking care of those things have varying degrees of commitment to getting those things taken care of. You will give the most attention to where the resources have the most efficient use. If some people are more committed, you give resources to them because they will be used efficiently.
As we show more commitment in our discussions with God, as we study God's word and understand His will, God places greater resources toward the particular work we are doing for Him.
"Isn't He already doing this?" Jim asks. No. He's not. Why? Because He is utilizing scarce resources that have alternative uses. To wit; He only has so much to work with (mainly Christians), and if a resource is used in one place it cannot be used in another. "Didn't He plan ahead to make sure he had enough resources for everything – What, is He stupid?" No. He's not stupid. Why? Because it is man that limits God, not poor planning on God's part.
What is really amazing is this: That God, despite our proven track record of losing, still loves us. And that God, despite our propensity to sin, still is able to save so many (albeit a minority).
Again I ask, besides preprogramming people to be saved, how else would you propose that God save more of the lost than He has?
Jim quoted Yorzhik:If your purpose for praying for this wisdom is to win souls for God, wouldn't He have already known that you needed it and wanted it? Does He wait until you actually ask before He grants it? And if souls are at stake, why would He wait for you to ask, and run the risk of having yet more of His special creations fall prey to Satan and stream into hell to suffer in torment for eternity?It would rather be a prayer in concert with someone who wanted God's wisdom. I'm curious if your response will have something in it about where or when we two people might pray.
You didn't address my statement. Did you quote me for a reason?
I have no problem with it in my worldview. I want to understand how you resolve the problem in your worldview. Are you telling me that you're satisfied with this proportion?
Right, you have no problem with a majority being lost. That is the consequence of your view.
I on the other hand, don't like a majority being lost because I understand that God wants all people to be saved. So my heart follows after God's in doing whatever I can to help the lost because I know every one of them has a chance to be saved.
How about a consistent view of the bible?What else should I stand on?
Too bad, Jim. God preprogramming the majority to go to hell doesn't make sense.Are you prepared to say, "Too bad, Jim. God doesn't have to make sense"?
How does it undermine my worldview? In my worldview God is not the loser, mankind is.Truth will make sense of our experience and knowledge. If God loves all men, wants all men to be saved and enjoy eternity with Him, and if He is doing everything He can to save as many as possible in this universe that He Himself created, how does it make sense that He is a big loser? He isn't even winning a majority of souls! He has had a losing season from the start. Now, I don't espouse any of those premises, so the ratio doesn't undermine my worldview. But it does yours, and I want to know how you find that at all acceptable.
Is Jim arrogant enough to claim that he knows how winning and losing is decided in this game we call mankind? He appears to claim to be. But what if just one soul saved is enough for God to realize a return on his investment of creating man? Does Jim know?
I'm not being inconsistent, and your just saying so doesn't make it so.
Jim. I didn't "just say so." I gave an example. The statement about parents wanting all their children to grow up with good character; that the word "all" means "without exception" is almost self evident. But when you read the same words from God speaking about Himself, you suddenly have to be inconsistent because your incorrect presupposition has blinded you. You must find a previous use of the word "all" to twist the meaning of the subsequent "all" so that it means "not all." The context of the prior use of pas does not dictate that the subsequent use must be limited in the same way. In fact, your explanation of the first use of pas is not enough to overcome it's all-encompassing use. There is no reason not to include kings and those in authority with the rest of all humanity in 1 Tim 2:1. So neither use is limited. Context determines the intended meaning and scope of this word, pas[-an], and as long as you refuse to recognize this, your theology will be hobbled.
Yes, He created mankind with a free will. The defect that mankind brought on himself was not God's responsibility.But He created mankind, right? What was the defect in the design that caused the overwhelming majority to rebel against Him?
If all the hitters on your baseball team hit a 333 batting average all of the time, you will win every ballgame. But how can this be if they hit a minority of the time? Because Jim doesn't decide the terms of winning and losing since he doesn't know what God considers winning or losing. Tell us Jim, since certainly less than 20% of humanity will make it to heaven, what percentage would we have to reach for God to consider it "worthwhile" to have made man?If General Motors had to junk the same percentage of defective cars, GM wouldn't be in business.
Again I ask, besides preprogramming people to be saved, how else would you propose that God save more of the lost than He has?
He didn't create them defective. He created them perfect. But they chose to become defective. That is the nature of free will, and the risk involved with genuine love.Why, on your view, does God get a pass for creating such a defective creature, such that the majority of them thumb their noses and run headlong to their doom?
This is an example of Jim not answering the question. Of course, we know that you don't care about the percentage because the numbers are preprogrammed and Jim has nothing to do with it. But you call the OV God a loser on the grounds that the percentage isn't high enough. So the question wasn't "Does Jim care what the percentage of heavenbound/hellbound humans is according to Jim's worldview?" The question was "Can Jim outthink the pathetic impotent weak loser that is not greater than Jim himself and find a more successful way to save an earthful of freewill agents."I don't want a higher precentage of humankind saved, and I don't think that has ever been God's goal, so it's not my problem in my worldview.
Ahhh, Jim? Did you read the bible from Adam and Eve to the Flood? Are you sure you don't want to revise and/or extend this remark?Who were God's immediate children? Adam and Eve. What shining examples of godliness they were. By your logic, succeeding progeny of Adam and Eve would have been less and less likely to accept Him.
Whoa there Hos. You said that Parents (like Adam and Eve) can be *successful* in getting a majority of their progeny to heaven. But apparently these same successful parents don't teach their successes that their children might ought'a go to heaven too. – what a bunch of losers these successful parents are.So is that the reason for OV God's problem? He has less luck over succeeding generations? That's still a failure to adequately plan, isn't it?
In the same place I have – God cannot do the logically absurd.Au contrare. Where have I described Him as finite?
The bolded section is your assumption on which your argument hangs. If it is incorrect, then your conclusion is wrong. So, what percentage *should* be saved so that even fallen man can still be a "very good" creation? Are you admitting that if merely a majority of God's children got saved, then God, logically, is not impotent?It's not non sequitur, given the premises of your position. Doesn't it bother you that the OV conception of God is impotent to do anything that will save more souls than are being saved? He supposedly loves all men, His special creation, and wants as many as possible to be with Him, to enjoy Him and His goodness forever. And, as the creator of the universe and of man, one would think that this God could design man such that the majority's first inclination and preference would not be to choose eternal torment over the blessings of God. But didn't describe His creation of man as "very good"? Was God mistaken? Wouldn't any logical evaluation of this scenario conclude: The majority of those specially created in God's image are rebels and end up in hell = this universe was a bad design and man's design is not "very good"?
------------------------------
I just have to comment on this:
Jim writes:
Look at it this way: Someone hands me a normal deck of cards. I ask her to shuffle the deck and to give it back to me. I then ask her to randomly choose one without my seeing the card. I spread the deck, separating the cards and allow her to choose a card. She carefully takes one, quickly looks at it and holds it against her so I can't see it. I ask her: "Do you feel I influenced your decision in any way?" She says no. I ask her if she believes she made a free choice. She says yes. I ask her how it might be possible for me to know what card she selected. She answers, "You would have had to see my card, but I was careful to make sure you didn't; or you would have to be really lucky." Since she doesn't believe in mind-reading, those are the only possibilities (read: contingencies). So I proceed to make my "lucky" guess. Of course, I not only knew the card in advance, but I predetermined that she would pick that card. "Do that again," she says. And I do. Everytime, I predetermine the card she will choose, but she is unaware that I am doing it, or how I am doing it. Each time, the contingency appears to be the same. Of course, there's a method involved, but she might actually think I got lucky every time. So there's an example of a predetermined outcome that had contingencies, both being true, but dependent upon the perspective and knowledge of each participant. So if you focus on the definitions that say "unforeseen causes," and "unseen effects," you have your answer: God is the unforeseen cause and unseen effect. Not knowing God's plan or purpose in particular events appear contingent from our perspectives, but are predetermined from His.
So, are you saying that God is the dealer, and every time we make a choice, we are picking a pre-determined card? Is that how the analogy goes?
[ CONTEXT ]
