A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism

OK WHO is "us"? Lets be specific. And if in fact non believers have a different thought process than believers, how does it matter?I would argue that at best, you know no more than we do. You hang your hat on evidence but would be flying in the dark if there were no evidence...since your preassumptions serve as your radar.

My problem isnt with the source. This is more your problem. I will explain. Glover sums it up rather well when he states:

quote:

---

1) As a result of the paradigm shift from faith governed by the biblically-informed mind,to faith governed by the "inner spirit of the heart", we may have forgotten (Jeremiah 17:9)without the renewed mind the heart is deceitful above all things..

---

Thus what your side is essentially saying is that the Bible is the beginning and ending of truth--period and that unless people return to this truth, all is lost. So first of all, what is a biblically informed mind? Does it mean that God Himself speaks to you through the Word and gives you infallible wisdom and truth? Seriously?
The same so-called truth that leads you to make 30,000 posts arguing YEC without evidence, rejecting most evidence from a world of established scientists, and ranting out your "objective truth" like Isaiah hmself? Look around at your audience. They have not been swayed by anything you have said, but they have noted the character whom you are and have become.Hey, who am I to question God ? Maybe He sent you to challenge the evolutionists and fellow semi-Christians(as you see us) alike. Maybe.So what is the character of this God whom you worship?
You would claim only that the Bible alone describes Gods character. Unlike me, you would not even attempt to describe this character whom allegedly gives you a biblically-informed mind...you would simply find His character within the scriptures in order to defend it. In fact, you would never even question what you believe or if your mind is not also deceived based on your belief that a biblically informed mind can never be wrong. I used to believe what Schaffer and Glover write about. In fact, my beliefs were more in line with yours..(despite you thinking I know nothing about true biblical teaching, I know the whole basic belief and argument in support of it) But I can't agree with the reasoning.Lets just take one point. How is it that an omnipotent all-wise Creator of all seen and unseen limits Himself to depending on humans to state His case for Him? And then likely foreknows that humans will argue with each other on the interpretation of His "objective" knowledge? One difference between you and I is that you trust your sources without hesitation because you believe that they all have biblically informed minds. One reason why I dont trust you is because though I trust God, and largely (though not blindly) trust the Bible. I dont trust that only some humans are biblically informed.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Technically, reading the book, I could see how you would conclude this. I was taught "Biblical Christianity" and got a different impression from it.

Yes, we are taught that there is only One God. Monotheism.

God is jealous not out of a need of His own, however. This from Psychology Today

quote:

---

Jealousy is a complex emotion that encompasses feelings ranging from fear of abandonment to rage and humiliation. It strikes both men and women and is most typically aroused when a person perceives a threat to a valued relationship from a third party. The threat may be real or imagined. Not limited to romantic relationships, jealousy can also arise among siblings competing for parental attention, among co-workers, or in friendships. Jealousy is distinguished from envy in that jealousy always involves a third party seen as a rival for affection. Envy occurs between two people and is best summed up as "I want what you have." Although jealousy is a painful emotional experience, evolutionary psychologists regard it not as an emotion to be suppressed but as one to heedas a signal, a wake-up call that a valued relationship is in danger and that steps need to be taken to regain the affection of one's mate or friend. As a result, jealousy is seen as a necessary emotion, because it preserves social bonds. It motivates people to engage in behaviors that maintain important relationships.

---

If Free Will is truly a valid concept in describing human relationship with God, and if God is anthropomorphized as having human characteristics and responses, He would be afraid that a third party--Satan---is quite capable of stealing humanity from Him. For whatever reason, He allowed the possibility for Satan to even exist and have the influence countering Gods perfect will. Don't ask me why...perhaps God needed to play this game to allow humans to freely love Him without His direct influence or power that they do. Critics of free will whine that they dont really have it because they are deprived of one option---making reality conform to their imagination. No matter how much one can argue that reality is based on science and evidence, this "belief" actually makes humans close to understanding the rules of reality without need of God. Which is precisely why God would be jealous. He set it up as a game that He might actually lose. As far as God commanding us to kill anyone, that is not the God modern believers follow. Jesus Christ is the one example of the God of Christianity---at least ideally. Realistically, you may have a point in that humans still "use" God as an excuse to kill whomever they want out of the way.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile

In your mind you have to make it silly. If God were to be taken seriously, you would lose your throne.Hey, I get your argument. In many ways, it does sound silly. Made up. Sometimes truth is found through fiction, however. Don't ever forget that.

Im not fully convinced that it is/was fiction. I've heard arguments from both sides.As Pilate asked Jesus: What IS Truth?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

The problem here is that you are reading the book and telling me what my God must do and what I must believe. Your interpretation, however, is not what I must believe.

Essentially I agree with GDR in that the message for Christians today is not found in the commands to the Jewish people of Israel in the Old Testament. It is found through Jesus Christ.

How do I explain? OK....a book of rules written by a computer would be easy to dismiss. A book written by a human, (or many humans) is the only book worth paying attention to in regards to belief, laws, and commandments. Even then, it can be easily ignored or dismissed as a fairy tale. You have done that. The odd thing, however, is that you read it like a legal document and insist that I believe and follow all of it. You miss the point. The point is that I am not following a book. I am following a character in the book. You start by quoting what GOD said to do. I would argue that it was not GOD actually talking. Many conservative Christians would disagree with my assessment. The point is, you won't win this argument by pinning me down to the legalities of what was written. First, you have to engage the character who speaks from the book. I will argue(though cannot prove) that the character is who initially inspired the scribes to write in the first place. The book without the character is useless. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

OK I get your point.

We are getting a bit off topic, but what about the United States and the B-52 Bomber strikes in the first Iraq War? Those airstrikes likely qualify as Mass Murder. Yet the United States is thankfully not a Theocracy. So what gives?

You cant have it both ways. Everything in the book, according to a skeptic, is ancient scribes writing about God dealing with the people of that time. If God exists and is involved at all, the accounts of His commands to the people were written down by the scribes of those same people. Not to mention that only the scribes of the victorious people had any input into the written record. It would be much the same in today's world. US Armed forces go to Iraq. Stated objective: Get Iraq out of Kuwait. Scribes=Associated Press.Some see the God of radical Islam similar to a monster under the bed. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Nobody wants to be on the losing side.But getting back to a God of Open Theism, such a God would allow His "One Nation Under God" to do exactly what it wanted to do based on the powers which its people gave to their leaders. Rightly or wrongly, Britain and the US perceived Iraq taking our Kuwait oil source away from us was a threat to our way of life. Israel also had threats to its way of life. Killing the children off as well prevented them from becoming sworn fighters against Israel later on as they grew up. Whether God is mentioned in the equation or not, the behavior of the people is the same. A God of Open Theism would allow that. Faiths God would be angry at His people if they disobeyed a direct order.

I agree with jars basic definition, except that I omit the word If(If) God exists God exists regardless of any evidence, lack of evidence, theory,or speculation regarding His existence. If God does not exist, God does not exist no matter what claims are made about an inerrant Bible, the behavior of believers, or any evidence to the contrary.I happen to believe that God does exist, that He exists through the character of Jesus Christ and that He will always exist. So at that point, you and I disagree. Jar simply brought up the point that God may exist and that no evidence can refute that fact. To be fair, jar also brought up the belief that God may not exist. You as an atheist don't even give it all much thought. The whole angels on a pin sort of thing.In the context of the Great Debate, ICANT and I are in fact talking about the same God. We are discussing the belief and the philosophy. You are free to counter that with any philosophy that you have...even if you claim it to be factual and evident. That's why we all have these debates.

IF God existed, would you bother sitting at His feet or would you attempt to mess with His head?As for wasting time, that's up to the discretion of the individual. Today happens to be my day off, so I enjoy "wasting time" on the computer. What do you do on your day off? You seem to be here at the forum a lot as well.

In my opinion, God would have had no need to order anything. He could have simply done it Himself. The fact that it was reported that God ordered the action seems to mean that someone killed them and blamed God for the action. If God wanted me dead, you would see the coroner pulling up within a day or two. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.