Unbeliever impressions of BR X debate

[avatar382]

Which other resident TOL pagans/non-theists/non-Christians are reading BR X with interest?

Personally, I have felt since my deconversion that there is Biblical evidence and support for both the Open View and exhaustive foreknowlege. In fact, the issue of free will it's related aspects was the very subjects that initally had me questioning the Bible. I personally believe the subject of BR X is at the heart of one of the its (The Bible's) largest contradictions!

Do you guys think the BR X debaters will end up proving the Bible fallible by virtue of their biblically accurate, but opposing arguments? I'm watching for it!

Note: I started a thread here because I did not want to risk hijacking the "peanut gallery" thread, which seems to be a Christian-only perspective of the debate...

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Which other resident TOL pagans/non-theists/non-Christians are reading BR X with interest?

Personally, I have felt since my deconversion that there is Biblical evidence and support for both the Open View and exhaustive foreknowlege. In fact, the issue of free will it's related aspects was the very subjects that initally had me questioning the Bible. I personally believe the subject of BR X is at the heart of one of the its (The Bible's) largest contradictions!

Do you guys think the BR X debaters will end up proving the Bible fallible by virtue of their biblically accurate, but opposing arguments? I'm watching for it!

Note: I started a thread here because I did not want to risk hijacking the "peanut gallery" thread, which seems to be a Christian-only perspective of the debate...

I'm unsure. I am a Christian, yes, but I still think something very interesting could come out of this argument. I will be watching with interest to see

Pete

 

[allsmiles]

too early to tell

 

[godrulz]

Some thinking philosophers have rejected classic concepts of God because they feel it is incoherent. A caricature/straw man of God is not worthy of who He is.

Calvinism is one branch of Christianity. I would have trouble seeing God's love and holiness as impartial if I believed in determinism. It would also be problematic for self-evident free will.

Fortunately, Open Theism provides a more biblical, coherent view of God. It does reconcile the issues surrounding free will, sovereignty, and omniscience. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity and logical contradiction. With this excuse out of the way, it is one less stumbling block for those who think God is responsible for evil (theodicy) due to the distortion of Calvinism. Calvinism is not the end all and be all of biblical Christianity. Though they are Christians, there is an alternate view that will not stumble thinking people.

Regardless, most atheists reject God for moral vs intellectual reasons. They are still without excuse (Rom. 1).

 

[Zakath]

avatar382,

I'm waiting to read a few posts by both sides before making any judgements. I have my own opinion on the orthodoxy of the Open View, but I don't want to comment further until I've actually seen some of what the lads have to say.

 

[fool]

Regardless, most atheists reject God for moral vs intellectual reasons. They are still without excuse (Rom. 1).

Care to elaborate on that?

 

[Lucky]

Personally, I have felt since my deconversion that there is Biblical evidence and support for both the Open View and exhaustive foreknowlege. In fact, the issue of free will it's related aspects was the very subjects that initally had me questioning the Bible.

I can see how that could happen.

(Hopefully yall don't mind me posting here. I, for one, am interested in what unbelievers think about the issue.)

 

[OMEGA]

What else is there but the Bible ?????

1. Evolution has been disproved.

Flora and Fauna are too interrelated to have developed on their own.

2. Human beings are far too Complex and Different to have come from Monkeys.

3. The Bible has been proven Historically and Prophetically correct.

4. The Bible offers IMMORTALITY as a Spirit Being.

No other Religion offers the ability to Live Forever in a Glorious Immortal Body
and the ability to Travel through the Universe .

 

[avatar382]

Some thinking philosophers have rejected classic concepts of God because they feel it is incoherent. A caricature/straw man of God is not worthy of who He is.

Calvinism is one branch of Christianity. I would have trouble seeing God's love and holiness as impartial if I believed in determinism. It would also be problematic for self-evident free will.

Fortunately, Open Theism provides a more biblical, coherent view of God. It does reconcile the issues surrounding free will, sovereignty, and omniscience. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity and logical contradiction. With this excuse out of the way, it is one less stumbling block for those who think God is responsible for evil (theodicy) due to the distortion of Calvinism. Calvinism is not the end all and be all of biblical Christianity. Though they are Christians, there is an alternate view that will not stumble thinking people.

Regardless, most atheists reject God for moral vs intellectual reasons. They are still without excuse (Rom. 1).

In general, I agree with you! (except about the being without excuse part )

The problem is, in my opinion, the open view is not consistent with the bulk of the text of the Bible. I feel that Calvinism, on the whole much more consistant.

I feel that the open view is the result of Christian theologians who do not like the unpleasant consequences of Calvinism, and it's inherent injustice, and so the open view was born as a rationlization to reconcile, as you said, the issues surrounding free will, sovereignty, and omniscience.

Of course, as Zakath mentioned in this thread, I will read the debate with great interest, in hopes of learning something new!

 

[avatar382]

What else is there but the Bible ?????

1. Evolution has been disproved.

Flora and Fauna are too interrelated to have developed on their own.

2. Human beings are far too Complex and Different to have come from Monkeys.

3. The Bible has been proven Historically and Prophetically correct.

4. The Bible offers IMMORTALITY as a Spirit Being.

No other Religion offers the ability to Live Forever in a Glorious Immortal Body
and the ability to Travel through the Universe .

Hi Omega,

Lets try to keep this thread squarely on the consequences of Open view vs. exhaustive foreknowledge.

I believe the last thing TOL needs is another 50 page thread on the general validity of Christianity, focusing on evolution...

 

[PureX]

I think it's a silly question and a silly debate. It's just one guy's idea about God butting heads with another. I have nothing against anyone's idea of God, I just think it's silly when people try to rationalize their idea of God as "the truth" by debating scripture. It's silly enough that people don't realize that their idea of God is just an idea, and is not God. But it's even more silly (to me) when they try to rationalize their pretenses by debating the meaning of ancient religious texts - as if somehow that would clear it all up! *smile*

You asked what I think .... that's what I think.

 

[OMEGA]

TURBO - deconversion ????

You used to Broadcast the Bible all over the place.

What happened ?

 

[Poly]

TURBO - deconversion ????

You used to Broadcast the Bible all over the place.

What happened ?

That's not Turbo.
Avatar382 just has the word turbo in his avatar.

There is only one Turbo!

 

[godrulz]

Care to elaborate on that?

Some evolutionists have said the evidence is weak, but if they admit that there is a Creator, He would also be a holy Judge. This would mean that they would have to change their lives rather than continue living selfishly or sinfully. There would be moral accountability. It is easier to live for Self than to admit there is a holy God. Christianity is intellectually defensible and will stand up to investigation. If there is no God, we can eat, drink, and be merry. If there is a God, we are obligated to put Him first since He is the most valuable being in the universe and qualified to rule our lives.

Romans 1 says that unbelievers suppress the truth by their wickedness. Creation makes it plain that there is a Creator.

 

[Clete]

Which other resident TOL pagans/non-theists/non-Christians are reading BR X with interest?

Personally, I have felt since my deconversion that there is Biblical evidence and support for both the Open View and exhaustive foreknowlege. In fact, the issue of free will it's related aspects was the very subjects that initally had me questioning the Bible. I personally believe the subject of BR X is at the heart of one of the its (The Bible's) largest contradictions!

Do you guys think the BR X debaters will end up proving the Bible fallible by virtue of their biblically accurate, but opposing arguments? I'm watching for it!

Note: I started a thread here because I did not want to risk hijacking the "peanut gallery" thread, which seems to be a Christian-only perspective of the debate...

I'm sure you'll get out of it exactly what you expect to get out of it.

 

[fool]

Some evolutionists have said the evidence is weak, but if they admit that there is a Creator, He would also be a holy Judge. This would mean that they would have to change their lives rather than continue living selfishly or sinfully. There would be moral accountability. It is easier to live for Self than to admit there is a holy God. Christianity is intellectually defensible and will stand up to investigation. If there is no God, we can eat, drink, and be merry. If there is a God, we are obligated to put Him first since He is the most valuable being in the universe and qualified to rule our lives.

Romans 1 says that unbelievers suppress the truth by their wickedness. Creation makes it plain that there is a Creator.

Why do you posit that evolutionists live selfishly or sinfully?
Why do you posit that it would be easier to live for self than to say there is a holy God?
Let me ask you a question Godrulz. Why do you think it's easy being an Atheist?
Why do you posit that if there is no God we can eat drink and be merry?
Shouldn't we do that either way?
Do you understand that someone that dosen't believe in an afterlife will take this life more seriously than someone that thinks they just have to profess a faith and show up to church 3 or 4 times a year?
Do you think that it's possible that an Atheist might lead a more rightous life than a Christian?
Do you think that the things we do in life echo in eternity?

 

[fool]

I'm sure you'll get out of it exactly what you expect to get out of it.

What are you gonna get out of it Clete?
If your position gets creamed are you gonna switch?

 

[godrulz]

Why do you posit that evolutionists live selfishly or sinfully?
Why do you posit that it would be easier to live for self than to say there is a holy God?
Let me ask you a question Godrulz. Why do you think it's easy being an Atheist?
Why do you posit that if there is no God we can eat drink and be merry?
Shouldn't we do that either way?
Do you understand that someone that dosen't believe in an afterlife will take this life more seriously than someone that thinks they just have to profess a faith and show up to church 3 or 4 times a year?
Do you think that it's possible that an Atheist might lead a more rightous life than a Christian?
Do you think that the things we do in life echo in eternity?

I do not wish to stereotype atheists.

There are two options: we can make God boss of our life, or we can live supremely for Self (even if we are not so bad...we still live moment by moment as if there is no God, even if we intellectually believe in God).

There are two kinds of people:

Those who say to God: "Thy will be done."

Those to whom God says, "OK, thy will be done."

 

[Clete]

What are you gonna get out of it Clete?
If your position gets creamed are you gonna switch?

I know better.

I've been around the issue and Bob Enyart long enough to know who is going to win the debate. The fun is only in watching it unfold and perhaps learning a new tactic by which to cream other Calvinists in future debates.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[OMEGA]

382 and deconversionists.

Maybe you were not called in the first place ?

Or maybe you are of those people who do not have any depth of Soil and give up easily.

Or maybe you don't realize what you are Throwing away.

Oh well, you guys are going to be assimilated later than the rest of us Christians.

We will wait for you from the Kingdom.

Mr 4:5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.

Mark 4:14 The sower soweth the word.
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended.
18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,
19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.