Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ok, let me know if you come up with an objection you'd like to discuss.I'm not aware of any Scripture that I've thrown out. William Lane Craig admitted that DDS originated in philosophy, not from Scripture, even though he himself accepts a lot of it.
I don't understand. Are you saying that you can resolve the approximately 15 areas of seeming incoherence in DDS theology? Such as the notion that God is immutable and yet became man?Ok, let me know if you come up with an objection you'd like to discuss.
You might appreciate some of Bob Enyart's work. He dismisses, or at least downplays, the "Ims" and the "Omnis", as he calls them, in favor of what God tells us about Himself. Here's an excerpt from one of his articles:Aseity is part of a philosophically ideal/idealized concept of God. Such has nothing to do with who Yahweh is, in my view, hence He cares nothing for it. Yahweh is merely a regular person who chose to unselfishly make the best of a potentially bad situation - He's merely my Father. He is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. That's it. Nothing more. He isn't Existence, Essence, Being, Absolute, Immutable, Impassible (etc. etc. etc. etc.) - all that philosophical stuff came from the Greeks, in my opinion. You can read my simplistic definition of Yahweh here.
I guess I don't see all of those things as necessary for DDS.I don't understand. Are you saying that you can resolve the approximately 15 areas of seeming incoherence in DDS theology? Such as the notion that God is immutable and yet became man?
Ok, but I think the more you remove aspects of DDS:You might appreciate some of Bob Enyart's work. He dismisses, or at least downplays, the "Ims" and the "Omnis", as he calls them, in favor of what God tells us about Himself. Here's an excerpt from one of his articles:
"The biblical attributes of our eternal God are that He is living, personal, relational, good, and loving. These correct and trump the Greek and philosophical attributes of the OMNIs and IMs (immutability, impeccability, impassibility, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence). For example, a stone idol is immutable, impeccable, and impassible."
I guess I don't see all of those things as necessary for DDS.
Why is that relevant to DDS?Ok, but I think the more you remove aspects of DDS:
- The less it should be called DDS.
- The more you have already gravitated towards my position. For example if we admit that God has finite knowledge (let's say He knows exactly 100,000 languages), how did He get this knowledge?
DDS tends to define God as an infinitely knowledgeable being - immutable in knowledge, incapable of learning.Why is that relevant to DDS?
I think what you mean is "DDS proponents tend to define God" that way. But it isn't a necessary condition to be a DDS proponent, afaik.DDS tends to define God as an infinitely knowledgeable being - immutable in knowledge, incapable of learning.
Are we going to keep these Omni's, or not? If not - if He doesn't know an infinite number of languages but say only 100,000 - where and how did He learn them?
So for you, Greek Philosophy = Bad?Aseity is part of a philosophically ideal/idealized concept of God. Such has nothing to do with who Yahweh is, in my view, hence He cares nothing for it. Yahweh is merely a regular person who chose to unselfishly make the best of a potentially bad situation - He's merely my Father. He is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. That's it. Nothing more. He isn't Existence, Essence, Being, Absolute, Immutable, Impassible (etc. etc. etc. etc.) - all that philosophical stuff came from the Greeks, in my opinion. You can read my simplistic definition of Yahweh here.
Ok so God created some languages, right? Fine. So how many languages did He know before then, and where did He learn them?I think what you mean is "DDS proponents tend to define God" that way. But it isn't a necessary condition to be a DDS proponent, afaik.
I can give you my answer to your language question, but when God knew them depends on who created them. God created some languages, like the one Adam spoke or that the people at Babel started speaking. Others man created, and God learned them as man created them, like the names of the animals in Genesis 2:19 (KJV) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.
Those were additions to the language God created, and therefore like a new language in some ways.
Or Fortran or C++ might be called new languages God learned from humans.
Theology cannot divorce itself from philosophy. In my opinion Greek philosophy has been bad for the church because, from what I can see, it has led to incoherent conclusions far removed from the truth.So for you, Greek Philosophy = Bad?
Yeah, I don't agree with that and any of the things that you have said. I rather benefit from all worldviews in so far that provides greater insight into the truth. I will not blindly accept something without questioning and working it out. God did not create a rational world, with rational intelligent beings, only to reject a rational way to understand the truth. We were made to use our intellect, not to forego it.
I understand what you mean.@Jonaitis
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying to avoid the study of philosophy - even Greek philosophy. What I'm saying is that there is a LOT of incoherent philosophy out there. If you're drawing coherent conclusions that the human mind can comprehend, seem to align with Scripture, and seem to resolve any enigmas in Scripture - wonderful!
I myself am a monistic materialist. Obviously I subscribe to a philosophy, right?
Again, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with DDS.Ok so God created some languages, right? Fine. So how many languages did He know before then, and where did He learn them?
Ok. The main point is that God, in your view, had a finite amount of information/knowledge from the getgo, right? I mean, He certainly didn't know an infinite number of languages.Again, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with DDS.
But I haven't any idea how many languages God knew before He created some and learned others. If there was a time when there wasn't anyone around that spoke other languages, then God wouldn't have to know those nonexistent languages.
A cursory examination of two accounts revealed the following:There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)?
Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?
What has this got to do with DDS? I think I mentioned already that DDS believes that concepts/properties exist, and that God is the omniscience-concept/property itself.Again, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with DDS.
But I haven't any idea how many languages God knew before He created some and learned others. If there was a time when there wasn't anyone around that spoke other languages, then God wouldn't have to know those nonexistent languages.
I guess now you have to define omniscience, since it equates to God.What has this got to do with DDS? I think I mentioned already that DDS believes that concepts/properties exist, and that God is the omniscience-concept/property itself.
Such a God has infinite knowledge by definition, nay, He IS infinite knowledge.
"God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience — which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience — but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has as Augustine puts it in The City of God, XI, 10. "
Divine Simplicity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Equates to Him in the Platonic sense that God is that concept/property itself? Meaning love exists as an immaterial concept/property somehow "hanging out there"? I think that's reading too much into the text. If I say, "That devious businessman is pure greed", it's not a Platonic assertion. Similarly I can say, "God is pure love" without being Platonic.I guess now you have to define omniscience, since it equates to God.
And what other things equate to God? One from the Bible is "love".
1 John 4:8 (KJV)
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
Not only that, but love is of God, so we can't really be related to God unless we love.
1 John 4:7 (KJV)
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God...
But then we have a problem, because God "has love".
1 John 4:16 (KJV)
And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
How can God HAVE something that equates to Him? That makes it something He exercises rather than something that equates to Him.
That's why I cited from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. DDS is about ANY plurality/multiplicity in God. This led to an apparent contradiction (discussed in that article): if God is the omniscience concept/property, how then can He be other concepts/properties as well such as love? Wouldn't this be multiplicity?But that's not the definition I read of DDS. It was more about whether God has parts that have to be assembled by someone else for God to exist, which I would deny, but you seem to adhere to.
Ok, I get where you're coming from. Thanks for your patience.Equates to Him in the Platonic sense that God is that concept/property itself? Meaning love exists as an immaterial concept/property somehow "hanging out there"? I think that's reading too much into the text. If I say, "That devious businessman is pure greed", it's not a Platonic assertion. Similarly I can say, "God is pure love" without being Platonic.
That's why I cited from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. DDS is about ANY plurality/multiplicity in God. This led to an apparent contradiction (discussed in that article): if God is the omniscience concept/property, how then can He be other concepts/properties as well such as love? Wouldn't this be multiplicity?
All that stuff is incoherent. None of it makes any sense because we're supposed to be talking about three persons, not three concepts/properties.
Probably nothing. As I recall, someone mentioned distrust of DDS, and I concurred, and somehow it took off from there.Ok, I get where you're coming from. Thanks for your patience.
Now it's been so long, what does this have to do with the topic?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?