@Lon Ping
You haven't responded to this post yet. You need to.
Infinite means all that is 1) created and with finite property, from an infinite God.
Repeating your position doesn't magically make it come true, Lon.
Infinite means what it means. It does not mean whatever you want it to mean.
Mind you, I'm seeing your point and the intimation,
But you refuse to let truth persuade you.
but as I read and interact with quantum physics, that which seem not possible is actually possible, in concept, theory, and experiment.
Quantum physics?
You're getting your theology from quantum physics?
No wonder you're having problems...
It means everything we 'think' we know isn't quite right.
Or, it means that you've gone too far in the wrong direction.
Truth is rational, not irrational.
It does not contradict itself.
Quantum physics may be hard to understand, but it is not irrational. It does not mean that that which contradicts itself is suddenly no longer in contradiction.
there is nothing in 'infinite' that exists outside (physical problematic term, trying to intimate) of what is all there is.
Infinite means what it means.
It does not mean that which it does not mean.
A = A
A != !A
"Infinite" means:
Infinite ( adj. ):
1. limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
- very great in amount or degree
- [mathematics] greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.
- [mathematics] (of a series) able to be continued indefinitely
2. another term for nonfinite |
God is all there is or ever was.
God is not the only thing that exists, currently.
Before Creation, yes. But not currently.
Thus, your statement "God is all there is or ever was" is false.
The physical universe, as expansive as it is, is physical, from God.
Yes, creation is from God.
It doesn't mean it is part of God.
God created it. God previously never thought about creation. Then He had the idea to create. Then He planned out His creation before He created. And when He was done planning, He created, starting with the heavens and the earth, then everything else in succession as described in Genesis 1 and 2, and the rest is history.
Creation was not an eternal part of God. That would make creation a necessary part of His existence. That's heresy. God is the only necessary entity.
Agree! You cannot even count up to it. This too, one idea I was trying to convey.
God did. Because He has always existed.
See
https://kgov.com/infinity
Problem with the video, he doesn't seem to understand that he is arguing from a finite concept and counting further. You cannot count past infinite nor up to it. His error: he is trying to attach a value to infinite that is finite.
Supra, re: kgov.com/infinity
He is wrong. Smart, but wrong.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Infinite, is a concept without 'ability' to quantify, which is what he is inaccurately trying to do. He is trying to count 'after' infinite which has no end point.
You seem to be missing the point, and in doing so, you establish my position. So thanks for that.
The very fact you constantly miss is that "infinite" keeps going. Thus, it is not "all there is," because there is always more.
If I were an Open Theist typical on TOL, I'd mock you, but it just isn't in me. It isn't a good reaction.
You'd mock me for literally referencing scripture?
Shame on you!
Rather, you and I both know that we don't know all things.
That's what 1 John 2:20 says, Lon.
Are you telling me that we shouldn't take what it says woodenly literally? :mock:
It is a difference between knowing 'finite' all of a topic vs. knowing all things even knowable.
Fallacy: begging the question.
Not what is happening. If one 'proof' fails, we continue. It isn't ignorance of your point, but rather it has been given rebuttal.
You can deny that it's happening, Lon. But that just means you're in denial.
Omniscience isn't taught in the Bible, unless you rip verses out of their context that only on their own seem to teach it.
That's called "eisegesis."
That's bad.
Don't do that.
It then behooves the other to say it in another way, or give better care to the proof.
How many different ways do I have to say something in order for you to understand it, Lon?
Too often, people just don't go the extra mile but rather blame the other for the inadequacy. It depends on patience and how deep one wants to go. You've definitely gone the extra mile, so just chalk this up to observation, perhaps for another person, another conversation. I've no beef and appreciate your efforts and hard work.
Apparently I haven't gone far enough, because you still believe something that the Bible doesn't teach.
Not exactly hyperbole though I'd agree hyperbolic-ish. It is rather that it gives the meaning in context thus "all things" in 1 John would be better understood, if not translated "you know everything about this topic." Sometimes, we have to dig for what a fisherman meant, I'd agree with you.
So are you conceding that 1 John 3:20 (or 2:20, for that matter) does not teach Omniscience?
Appeal to emotion isn't a logical fallacy?
Are you sure about that?
en.wikipedia.org
there is a kneejerk against Open Theism out the gates for a lot of us, specifically because of that emotion.
That's not my problem.
It isn't necessarily then 1) Illogical nor fallacy, just that there is more at stake that one has to eschew if they are to even entertain an Open Theist's ideas, because they assault sensibility
False doctrines tend to make people comfortable, so that when actual truth comes around, it makes them uncofortable, because their "sensibilities" have been conditioned to accept what is false, because it is comfortable.
In other words, deal with it.
and 2) that it is appeal to emotion that is fallacy, not emotion itself.
Yes. That's why I rebuked you: You made an appeal to emotion to further your argument.
3) That there is an idea about the majesty of God and wonder of God that is indeed assailed by Open precepts For what it is worth...
Or, perhaps this idea you have about "the majesty of God" and "wonder of God" is false, and Open Theism challenges that idea which makes you uncomfortable.
There is no "not quite" here, Lon. It was a statement of my opinion.
I'm open to being wrong, but so far, you haven't presented any convincing argument to the contrary.
What it does do, however, is goes beyond rational.
There is no such thing as "beyond rational."
That's irrational.
Again, God is not irrational.
Thus, any doctrine or belief that makes God out to be irrational is, on its face, false.
IOW, it isn't 'just' rational else faith and trust wouldn't be needed,
Faith and trust are based on evidence. Evidence involves reason.
You cannot toss out reason just because you want to hold to a position that is contradictory to truth.
That makes YOU irrational.
There is no "it isn't 'just' rational."
Something is either rational or irrational. There is no third option. (Law of excluded middle)
No, Lon, I don't follow, because what you're doing is throwing out the laws of logic and reason in order to hold to a position that has been shown to be irrational.
Appeals to it, notwithstanding, but worth occasionally mentioning, for the scale/scope of difference, at least I think it worth the few moments.
Appeals to emotion? Or to irrationality?
Sounds irrational, to me.
Don't be irrational.
On the contrary, you are following along and responding.
So what?
What I said stands.
Persuasion is from God, we plant and water and then learn MUCH patience!
Persuasion is not just from God.
Otherwise Paul would not have tried to persuade people of his doctrine. (Cf. Acts 17, 19, 26, etc)
I'll buy that a moment: Would you say most Calvinists aren't? (doesn't really need a reply trim as much of this as you'd like, but I think we've had this conversation in the not too distant past).
I'm talking about the -ism. Not the -ist.
Some Calvinists refuse to be malleable, which is consistent with their beliefs.
I asked above, because there are two sets of Calvinists: Ones that think 'ordination,' rather 'allow' than 'made.'
"Allow"?
There is no "allow" on God's part in Calvinism qua Calvinism.
There are any number of quotes from Calvin's
Institutes which deny that God "permits" things to happen, but rather that He wills or commands for them to happen.
Those who believe God "allows" or "permits" things to happen aren't consistent with Calvinism.
Why it is always a messy discussion with determinism:
Because Calvinistic determinism is irrational, and because definitions of words are changed from what they actually mean. Point in case:
If I 'allow' something, it is intimated rightly that I have power over it, thus my 'but one will.' Allowance gives another the responsibility if not actual power I reserve. Perhaps this example will help us both discuss this out:
Allow does not give the idea of the one allowing being the primary cause of the action.
On Calvinism, God is the primary cause of all things, nothing happens that He did not predetermine, and cause to happen. He is the first and ONLY cause.
But if He "allows" something to happen, yes, He has some measure of control over it, but He is not the primary cause of it. The action originated from outside of Him.
That's the part that you and other Calvinists seem to miss.
My child is going to touch a hot stove (bad example, I'd always intervene, hence decretive by will but I want to talk of prescriptive here).
My will (and power) is that they not get burned. The consequences are too great (possible permanent skin damage, very painful day of injury).
My prescriptive will may be that they touch the stove and learn a valuable lesson on their own. If I had a very willful child,
:think:
there is every indication that I must either remove the stove and figure out some other way, hoping they will grow out of it, or that I must perchance temper the stove so the harm is less. My desire (will) is that they never touch the stove. So my actual will is 'no touchy' for always. It is the best. The second will, is working with circumstances for the best possible outcome.
I've seen so much against prescriptive/decretive will of God, but I don't have any other way to see it that makes this kind of sense. Now certainly, as the parent, I'm responsible for both plans, I have all the power.
But you are not the originator of your child's actions.
It is rather what I need to do to either ensure they aren't killed by it: God sent the Lord Jesus Christ; or that I remove the issue altogether. I'm not sure of the brilliance of analogy here, but it seems to coincide with the Tree of knowledge in the Garden on point.
This is why I was ever a hold-out. I was very honest with AMR that Limited Atonement was retrospect for me: I don't believe in universal salvation, hence see 'limited' but not the way Calvinist's state that limitation. I see 10 plagues as building Israel's faith, but also as mercy and opportunities for Pharaoh and his court to repent. God knew that Pharaoh would not and told Moses so (another passage that keeps me from Open Theism ideology).
See the second YouTube video.
It is my estimation from scripture, that God causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust, specifically because of grace and opportunity. We grow how we decide, He gives the implements to do so in grace.
Which flies in the face of Calvinism.
He can. . . . "All He can save" is prescriptive. He could (ability) have removed the Tree of Knowledge, for example.
Only if God never intended to give man a way out of His presence. Which would be consistent with Calvinism, not Open Theism.
Keeping the Tree there is consistent with OT.
A child can only run into the street so many times, if determined, before that child dies.
How many times is not determined.
Likewise, God has gone to reasonable extremes to ensure none are lost to sin. That there are stubborn children who will touch the stove or run in the street 'no matter what?' Yes.
This does not fit with Calvinism.
It fits perfectly with OT.
Then why doesn't He?
Then why isn't the whole world saved, Lon?
The Cross is available to all, just as the rain is available to all.
Not according to Calvinism, it isn't.
It's only available to the elect (per Calvinism).
Not a Calvinist or fatalist if you will.
Yet you believe that God knows all things, which is one of the core beliefs by which the only logical conclusion is (in this case, theistic) "fatalism."
Lon: How much of the future is settled? As in, "will happen exactly the way it happens."
Not on this particular, is what I am/was saying.
It matters, Lon!
Ideas have consequences!
The very fact that you think this way is a direct result of what you believe, literally proving my point!
It matters greatly "IF" God knows something. If He does not know something, then "omniscience" (as defined by Greek philosophers and by Augustinians) IS FALSE!
It makes no difference what one calls themselves, it is rather what God 'does' than what God 'knows' that is paramount to most conversations and dialogue about the God we love and serve.
That's not what this topic (or thread, for that matter) is about, Lon!
This thread is literally about WHAT GOD KNOWS!
Jesus said if one lusts, he/she has committed adultery, so I'm not fully opposed to ideas having consequences, but I'd intimate/argue it is an idea entertained, that forms the mind, that thus leads to actions, which are the thing that actually has consequences.
That's not what it means, Lon.
It means that if you have an idea on something, or a concept of how something works, or anything having to do with what you think or believe, your mind is literally affected by that idea. If you believe that evolution explains how creatures are today, then anytime you see a fossil, you will see evidence for that belief. If you believe that natural selection and "survival of the fittest" is the way things work, then you might have delusions about shooting up a school, even if you never ultimately do so. And on other hand, if you believe that God is love, that He created the universe within the past 10,000 years, and that evolution and "survival of the fittest" are made up mechanisms to try and explain the existence of life without God, then you will be more inclined to love your neighbor, and seek God!
IDEAS. HAVE. CONSEQUENCES!
I don't see any consequence for "I'd like to give him a piece of my mind!" if the following idea "but God has this" is another idea, such that consequences aren't a direct result of ideas we have, but rather, what we act upon.
It's not "thought -> specific action" that I'm talking about.
It's "thought -> way of thinking -> general direction in life."
How do you 'act' upon the thought that He either knows and or doesn't know all things? What in your daily life is the action upon that information?
I live my life like a normal human being, rather than constantly pondering whether something was predetermined from eternity past for some specific purpose.
That God is always good (immutable in a way even Open Theists agree with), always just, always loving, etc. does indeed inform our behavior, but again, it is the action upon that knowledge, is it not?
Supra.
The Doctrine of Immutability is not about God's attributes, or at least, not SPECIFICALLY about them. It's about God Himself, everything about Him!
It asserts that God is unchanging in his nature, attributes, will, and purposes, and emphasizes that God's eternal perfection and sovereignty remain constant, and that His character is not subject to influence, alteration, or variation.
The problem with this doctrine is that the Bible shows God changing literally from the very beginning of the Bible all the way to the very end, in just about every way except in a few core attributes!
And it's not because God is unable to change in those attributes, but because He is UNWILLING to change in those ways!
He is not willing to stop being loving.
He is not willing to stop living.
He is not willing to give up being personal.
He is not willing to give up having relationships.
He is not willing to stop being good.
The idea that He is completely immutable affects how you read the Bible.
It's what is called "theological lenses" in the figurative sense.
Needs a discussion on prescriptive and decretive as well as what 'predetermined' means.
God does not have multiple wills that conflict with each other, Lon.
To assert He does is to introduce contradiction into the Godhead.
GOD IS NOT IRRATIONAL, THEREFORE THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION WITHIN HIM!
To be honest, I don't know how these particular Calvinists live,
I think it was Bob Enyart (but I could be wrong) who told a story about an interaction with a Calvinist friend he had at a store. The friend was trying to decide between two of the same kind of item, and wondered which one he should get, but couldn't make a decision because he wasn't sure which one was God's will for him to buy. So Bob (or whoever was telling the story) told him to pick one based off of a different criteria (I'm sorry, I don't recall which), and the friend chose one, and so he said that's the one God wanted you to choose.
The point he was trying to make, of course, was that you shouldn't live like God has a plan for everything in your life. He leaves certain decisions up to us! A position that is not tenable under Calvinism, if you're consistent, at least.
but it is again the actions or lack that have the consequence in particular.
Supra.
One Calvinist told me: I preach like I'm a universalist, because I don't know, only God does. IOW, the exact (or nearly) gospel preaching that the consequential action is the same. After that, please inform what might be missing and ty.
He has to preach inconsistent with his worldview because his worldview robs him of the possibility that the Bible tells us who will be saved!
Ideas have consequences!
How? What? Do you do your devotions every day, as I do? Do you pray for others as I do? Do you desire a closer walk with Him today?
I do so because I WANT TO, not because I've been predetermined to do so before the foundation of the earth!
What is specifically different between you and I?
What's different is that on your view, I'm just a really complex robot carrying out my programmed life, with no possibility of ever doing anything apart from what was predestined to happen, whereas on mine, I'm a living being capable of making my own decisions, regardless of and sometimes against whatever input or stimulus I encounter.
You might say 'your expectation' but I don't think that is true. It was either you or another that said "when you pray, you are an Open Theist."
Whoever said that is correct.
Only Open Theists believe that prayer can affect God.
On Calvinism, God is immutable (unable to change) and impassible (cannot be affected emotionally), and not only that, He's the one who foreordained you to pray in the first place, for a circumstance which He predetermined, for whatever outcome He commanded to happen.
On Arminianism, God knew you would pray, knew your circumstance, and knew the outcome before the foundation of the earth.
On Open Theism, however, God did not know or predestine your prayer, your circumstances, or the outcome, but is not only capable of changing the outcome, but also of being affected by your prayer, and might potentially act to change the outcome from what it was originally, to something more favorable to the person who prays!
It is rather the same destination, different road in prayer.
The result might be the same, but the underlying mechanism for how it all works is COMPLETELY different!
I expect God to answer prayer. You expect God to answer prayer. Difference: You believe because God doesn't know. I believe because He does.
So, you're more of an Arminian than a Calvinist.
The problem is that nothing at all changes when you pray. The outcome was already known beforehand. Your prayer was just another cog in the machine.
On my view, I could pray or not pray, God can act or not act, and the outcome could be anything at all (within reason, of course).
Same end, different conclusion on 'how we got to the destination.'
Same end, but on your view, nothing changed, on mine, the outcome could change.
Perhaps one preferring motorcycles and the other a plane, by analogy: God ordained you ride a motorcycle! God allowed and didn't know I'd take the plane!
On your view, God intended, and predetermined, that you ride the plane, in which seat, how many lavatory visits you would take because of the food He predetermined that you would eat, that every baby on the flight would cry, except one, and that the trip would take X amount of time and travel Y distance from gate to gate, and that it would exactly follow the path that it ends up taking, that every single molecule that hits the fuselage of the plane would do so at exactly the right moment, etc, etc, ad nauseum, and that you couldn't do otherwise, nor any other person on that flight, nor the plane itself, nor the atmosphere itself, etc.
On my view, God wants to see which bike I would purchase, which gas I would put in it, whether I decide to put the battery on the trickle charger before my trip or not and when I take it off, where I stop along the way, what things I put in my backpack, or even if I take a backpack. Heck, it might even rain, and I might have to put my trip on hold because of the weather.
Quite the difference.
We'll argue of course over the language, but the consequences are somewhat negligible: both brought us to the same destination regardless of what we believe God loves more, motorcycles or planes. Do know, I know this is roughshod analogy and doesn't quite equate, but I do think it roughly the difference.
The consequence of your view is that God always knew what would happen.
The consequence of mine is that God can respond to what happens, and change the outcome if He chooses to.
For 25 years, but realize this is directional instruction: The believer to an unbeliever.
The passage doesn't specify "believer to unbeliever," Lon.
It says "always be ready to give a defense to
EVERYONE who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you"!
TOL Open Theists, at times, don't parse well.
I parsed the passage just fine, Lon.
You, on the other hand...
Do you believe you've paraphrased well? (work on it?)
I call it how I see it.
ONLY because Open Theists don't entertain the rebuttal.
That's what I've been doing, Lon.
I've entertained it, and the fact remains, the logical conclusion of your position, regardless of your rebuttal, is that God is the Author of sin.
Look to the child/stove analogy again: 1) I do argue from a Calvinist standpoint at times, but in the past I've been more Amyraldian (not Catholic). Today? I don't think you could label me, because I cannot quite label myself, certainly not on page enough with any particular to call myself anything.
Amyraldians are just four-point Calvinists, as far as I'm aware.
It isn't. My belief doesn't logically mandate the latter. God can know every detail of all future. It doesn't make Him the Author. Let's go to the child/burn analogy: I know on such and such a day, let's say next Tuesday, my son is going to touch that hot stove. I've placed sufficient barriers and prohibitions (or have I?). Whatever is going to happen is partly my responsibility: I didn't remove the stove. Rather, the need for me, is to have heat in our house so we don't freeze. The woodstove is necessary. So Tuesday, I know ahead of time, my son is going to crawl over the child-fence and touch the stove. He cannot help himself, or is unwilling to do so. He's three, he has a limited knowledge and little understanding of what the stove will do. You can certainly call me the author of his burn, but that, imho, is negligent an jumping to hasty conclusions (in a very real sense, what I believe Open Theism does).
Your analogy fails because you are not God, and (at least per your view) do not have infallible foreknowledge of all future events.
Let's rework your analogy, so that we're talking about God and his knowledge:
T = your son, on next Tuesday, will touch the hot stove
(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then your son cannot do otherwise than touch the hot stove next Tuesday. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8) Therefore, you he cannot do otherwise than touch the hot stove next Tuesday. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when your son touches the hot stove, he will not do it freely. [8, 9] |
(edited argument from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/)
This argument works for any kind of theistic fatalism, either Calvinistic or Arminian, whether God knows the future infallibly because He commands it to happen, or simply because He knows what will happen infallibly
I intimate that it matters not a whit if I knew implicitly or vaguely that he was going to touch the stove on Tuesday. It rather matters 'why' I allowed it
Indeed. Why did God, on your view, allow your son, on Tuesday of next week, to touch the hot stove?
The only answer Calvinists can give is "because it pleases Him for it to happen exactly that way."
and Open Theism is not at all needed to answer that question and implications regarding that happening.
Open Theism is needed in order to answer the question in such a way that God is not made out to be evil!
On the Open view, God did not infallibly know your son would touch the hot stove on Tuesday of next week, because it hasn't happened yet, thus it's not a matter of "knowing it would happen and doing nothing about it," but rather "God didn't know it would happen until right before it happened, and even until it actually happened, God still did not know infallibly that it would happen!
On the Open view, your son could get close to it, and touch it, or NOT touch it, or not get close at all.
On the Open view, you could see your son attempting to get close to it earlier, and put up a barrier that prevents him from touching it, or you could let it become a valuable teaching lesson, and let him touch it, with medication waiting that you prepare beforehand, so that if and/or when he touches the hot stove, you can explain to him why what happened to his hand happened. Or, God forbid, you intentionally sit there and watch him touch it with no medication ready, so that his hand becomes scarred from touching it.
The implication on the Calvinist view is that not only did God KNOW it would happen, but He WANTED IT TO HAPPEN, and even that He WILLED IT TO HAPPEN!
THAT PAINTS GOD AS EVIL, LON!
It doesn't matter if I had it written down a month prior or two weeks prior or if I knew the moment before it happened, the accusation is the same and no Almanac from the future with the even that says "it happened" make me the author of the event (per say, I did write it down by analogy so am the author, but not the one who 'made it happen.'
The fact of the matter is, Lon, that if God infallibly knew something would happen, then it WILL happen.
If God does nothing about it, that paints Him in a negative light.
If God knew infallibly from before the foundation of the world that the terrorrists would fly a plane into the Twin Towers in NYC on September 11, 2001, and did nothing to change the course of history, so that they would not, then He is a God who is unwilling to act to save 3,000+ people, when the Bible explicitly teaches that God is not willing that ANY should perish!
Even by your own logical standards, you can see, readily, I didn't make this event happen.
The problem is that God's knowledge, according to your view, is infallible, in other words, infallible knowledge is an aspect of God's existence. It will happen because He is God. It is necessary that it will happen.
And your view prevents God from doing anything about it, because that would make His knowledge fallible.
Does having the stove make me the author (maker) of burns and this event? In an unrealistic sense, yes, but by no implication am I guilty of his burn, other than the need for the stove far outweighed that burn he received and thus I 'foreordained it, not for it, but for something that was more important than the burn that day. What another chooses to do with that information will have me in court.
Supra.
When I throw away a McDonald's bag out my window, I get the ticket, not McDonalds. Does McDonalds know that a certain number, statistically foreknown will end up on the street? Of course it does. They can come up with more biodegradable materials, put your burger in your hands without paper, etc. etc. It isn't really their responsibility and prosecutors would be superfluous and sue-happy for pursuing McDonalds.
Welcome to the Open View.
In the same manner, EDF accusation is, to me, superfluous, sue-happy, and wrong-headed in near exactly the same manner. It is looking for guilt where none lies.
But it's not, because God's infallible knowledge is a necessary aspect of His existence. He is still ultimately the cause of everything that happens, because He created knowing (infallibly) that people will sin, and created them anyways. He created them, knowing they could not do otherwise. That makes Him impotent, in my estimation, not omnipotent.
The only defense of God that does not make Him out to be irrational or evil, aka theodicy, the defense of God's justice, is that God created free moral agents, capable of doing things apart from His will.
Yes, but literal too! No?
Specifically the "God causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust" part, no.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Love Your Enemies - “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your...
www.biblegateway.com
You seem to have missed the broader picture that is painted by the passage.
This is part of the Sermon on the Mount, which 1) is full of commands for the coming Time of Jacob's Trouble, but beyond that, Jesus is speaking in such a way as though these people could do other than what He is teaching. "Love your enemies" "Bless those who curse you" "Do good to those who hate you" "Pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you" Why? "That you
may be the sons of your Father in heaven." (In other words, as if the future is not settled.)
God set the earth in motion, and gave it an atmosphere capable of rain and sunshine. In that sense, "God makes His sun rise on the evil and the good" (because evil and good happen under the same sun) and "God sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (because it rains when it rains, regardless of who it rains on).
God's.
If one, in good faith, is trying to discuss something from their belief system, mocking isn't the proper response.
Sure.
However, when you have made the same defeater argument time and time and time again, at what point can you stop playing nicely? Because at some point, stubbornness takes over. Yes, even for both parties, but primarily for the one holding the now-defeated belief.
At that point, all that CAN be done is mocking.
It is one reason TOL has shrunk.
TOL shrank for a number of different reasons. People not having thick skin is the result of other causes. People not coming to TOL is just a second-hand result of that.
TOL shrank primarily because no one is interested in well thought-out discussion. They lost the patience to deal with arguments that contradict their beliefs.
It's not just TOL that has experienced this.
People even 70 years ago would state their beliefs, and the response would be "prove it," and eventually, at some point, they would reach an impasse, where something would have to give in order to continue.
Nowadays, people will state their beliefs, and the opposition will mock and ridicule and even assault them for simply having the position, rather than engage rationally and present opposing beliefs and then discuss them.
While I do appreciate where you are coming from, I don't readily do this because I'm at this for quite different reasons. It isn't just to vocalize, but to serve both God and the one whom He loves. Granted feel-good mush, but ever my endeavor to be mushy on several fronts where He and His own are concerned. In Him
Unfortunately, the world we live in today needs unequivocal, uncompromising defense of the truth, and most Christians today are too nice.
kgov.com
Post #1/X
We buy into paradigms, the question is: Are these actually true? Between us, we believe two separate truths. It means, either or both of us (if you'd entertain such an idea) are wrong. If we are both wrong, how badly? If one of us, why can we not simply logic the point so clearly that anybody would go to the other side? Because I know this, I am way more readily willing to look at my own precepts. The disagreement demands it. Open Theists on TOL, mostly entrench and relegate to odd banter like: Stupid! etc. This helps no one, not even the Open Theist, and honestly? Makes it even more suspect over the entrenchment: "If this is their only rebuttal, they aren't capable."
I take heart in that, we have agreements which are foundational to communicating same values.
