I don't know what I am.

[razeontherock]

I think I am a theist. I believe that God exists, but I believe the only thing that exists--really--is God. Paradoxically, that leads to a kind of atheism. Try imagining it and you'll see what I mean.

After all, if you don't believe in any of the gods ever invented by man, and you disregard every religion as complete nonsense, then what are you left with? But that's where I am.

I call myself a humanist, and I live out that philosophy in my life, but I call myself a theist, and most humanists are atheists. I don't believe I will survive after death, but I believe that God never ceases, and He's the only thing that really exists anyway. And so I don't find hope in resurrection, but then I don't find despair in not existing anymore.

There is no religion to describe what I am. I am like an atheist who believes in God. And now I know that God exists, because only God has a sense of humor like that. We puzzle over paradox while He laughs at it.

I think you're describing pantheism. Keep your disdain for religion, investigate panentheism and find that superior to pantheism - and there ya have what I am. (Nobody here has been able to deduce that)

 

[crimsonleaf]

I think you're describing pantheism. Keep your disdain for religion, investigate panentheism and find that superior to pantheism - and there ya have what I am. (Nobody here has been able to deduce that)

Is that the Native American in you?

It certainly explains some of your more obscure answers

 

[Edward the Theist]

I think you're describing pantheism. Keep your disdain for religion, investigate panentheism and find that superior to pantheism - and there ya have what I am. (Nobody here has been able to deduce that)

Well, you have a little cross there that says you're a Christian. I think if you call yourself a Christian, then you have to believe what Christians believe. Otherwise, I could call myself a Christian--after all, I like Jesus Christ, too.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Well, you have a little cross there that says you're a Christian. I think if you call yourself a Christian, then you have to believe what Christians believe. Otherwise, I could call myself a Christian--after all, I like Jesus Christ, too.

Despite all the previously posted rhubarb, you raise a good point. Is being a Christian really being a Christian when one holds a view of God which most would describe as un-biblical?

According to my understanding of panentheism holds that God is subject to change (being in part within creation itself) which is in line with process theology. Process theology denies that God is in Himself perfect and complete, something central to Christian and Jewish belief.

 

[Hillel1985]

Well, you have a little cross there that says you're a Christian. I think if you call yourself a Christian, then you have to believe what Christians believe. Otherwise, I could call myself a Christian--after all, I like Jesus Christ, too.

What a very fundamentalist approach to what it means to be Christian, which simply means "Christ follower." That is the problem, both secularists and fundamentalists take the same approach to God, "absolutism." Being a panentheist does not make one less Christian than one who takes a supernatural theistic approach to Christianity. Christianity, as with most religious traditions, is very diverse, and has always been so. So, to say that any one way of speaking of God is "Christian" and anything else is not is fallacious. After all, the Christian writings are as diverse as the people who call themselves Christian. That diversity is not convenient for those wishing to box people in, but it is reality.

 

[Hillel1985]

Despite all the previously posted rhubarb, you raise a good point. Is being a Christian really being a Christian when one holds a view of God which most would describe as un-biblical?

According to my understanding of panentheism holds that God is subject to change (being in part within creation itself) which is in line with process theology. Process theology denies that God is in Himself perfect and complete, something central to Christian and Jewish belief.

Process does not argue that God is imperfect or incomplete. Rather it argues that God creates an interactive cosmos that is open ended. Thus, it argues that God is open to new experiences as God interacts with creation and created beings. Otherwise, how else can humans have free will or be responsible for their own actions? And, how can God answer prayers if God cannot, by creating a deterministic and pre-known system, be open to changes in interaction. Prayer makes no sense if God cannot be open to answering those prayers by planning and knowing all events past, present, and future. God is the Living God. No where does the Bible say God is the "Static God" the "Unmoved Mover."

Being able to experience novelty does not mean God is not perfect, it just means God can experience novelty. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, process does a good job of explaining evil, disaster, tragedy, without impugning God as the creator and planner of that evil, which, if God knows all absolutely and planned the course of history, God would be responsible for. Now, that would be calling God imperfect as you would be attributing evil to God.

 

[crimsonleaf]

Process does not argue that God is imperfect or incomplete. Rather it argues that God creates an interactive cosmos that is open ended. Thus, it argues that God is open to new experiences as God interacts with creation and created beings. Otherwise, how else can humans have free will or be responsible for their own actions? And, how can God answer prayers if God cannot, by creating a deterministic and pre-known system, be open to changes in interaction. Prayer makes no sense if God cannot be open to answering those prayers by planning and knowing all events past, present, and future. God is the Living God. No where does the Bible say God is the "Static God" the "Unmoved Mover."

An omniscient, foreknowing God can indeed answer prayer by factoring it in to his predetermined decision. And any "God" who is open to new experiences is, by definition, incomplete. Would you claim that God can be surprised?

 

[Hillel1985]

An omniscient, foreknowing God can indeed answer prayer by factoring it in to his predetermined decision. And any "God" who is open to new experiences is, by definition, incomplete. Would you claim that God can be surprised?

I would. As would many Rabbis and Jewish thinkers...Rabbis William E. Kaufman, Bradley Shavit Artson, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Michael Lerner, etc.

God would not be incomplete in God's self if God experiences novelty...

If God "factors in prayer to his [sic] predetermined decision" then this would still make prayer futile as God would have already had a pre-determined from eternity answer to a prayer God knew would be spoken. Thus, why even speak the prayer? After all, it and it's answer were already pre-determined. It would happen whether we prayed or didn't. That just doesn't make sense. Free will would be illusion in a determined world, as would our responsibility. Everything would be God's responsibility, even our personal and collective decisions, since they were pre-determined by God anyway.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I would. As would many Rabbis and Jewish thinkers...Rabbis William E. Kaufman, Bradley Shavit Artson, Abraham Joshua Heschel, Michael Lerner, etc.

God would not be incomplete in God's self if God experiences novelty...

If God "factors in prayer to his [sic] predetermined decision" then this would still make prayer futile as God would have already had a pre-determined from eternity answer to a prayer God knew would be spoken. Thus, why even speak the prayer? After all, it and it's answer were already pre-determined. It would happen whether we prayed or didn't. That just doesn't make sense. Free will would be illusion in a determined world, as would our responsibility. Everything would be God's responsibility, even our personal and collective decisions, since they were pre-determined by God anyway.

Firstly, to get the housekeeping out of the way "predetermined" is one, unhyphenated word (as is "unhyphenated"), according to all sources I've checked.

The relationship between foreknowledge and free will is a difficult one to debate over a forum like this as it requires a lot of linking and reading. However, my own theology is clearly at odds with yours. What we know for sure is that when we pray what we get back is God's will, and indeed, that's all we should ask for. And when we pray for a relative to be changed, do we pray to the relative, or ask God to change that relative's heart for salvation? Because all this links with God's sovereignty and the will of man.

So, in your system, Free Will by necessity leads to Open Theism?

 

[Hillel1985]

Firstly, to get the housekeeping out of the way "predetermined" is one, unhyphenated word (as is "unhyphenated"), according to all sources I've checked.

The relationship between foreknowledge and free will is a difficult one to debate over a forum like this as it requires a lot of linking and reading. However, my own theology is clearly at odds with yours. What we know for sure is that when we pray what we get back is God's will, and indeed, that's all we should ask for. And when we pray for a relative to be changed, do we pray to the relative, or ask God to change that relative's heart for salvation? Because all this links with God's sovereignty and the will of man.

So, in your system, Free Will by necessity leads to Open Theism?

Well, first, if I was trying to correct "predetermined" I would have placed the (sic) after that word. Rather I was putting (sic) after "his" to show I think gendered language about God is incorrect.

I'm not going to argue with you. Because we are coming from two very different religious traditions, and ultimately it will not be fruitful or edifying in anyway.

 

[elopez]

Process does not argue that God is imperfect or incomplete. Rather it argues that God creates an interactive cosmos that is open ended. Thus, it argues that God is open to new experiences as God interacts with creation and created beings.

Process Theology may not argue imperfection directly, nor make any such claims, but that is what the conclusion seems to be. God can interact with creation efficiently without having an open future, which renders the assumption that it is "open ended" an unnecessary conclusion.

We believe in a Triune God. God is one, while existent as three distinct persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Without the universe, God is eternal and timeless since time began with the universe. The Father is eternal and timeless as are the Son and Holy Spirit. Once God wills to create, however, the Son becomes temporal as does the Spirit which is a thought actually grounded in Scripture (The Father created through the Son). And once the incarnation, the Son becomes temporal to a more fuller extent (physicality). Yet the Father was not incarnated, and so must have remained timeless as He did without the universe. So, while God the Father could be said to be timeless, it could also be maintained that through the Son God is also temporal and interacts directly with the world and the rest of creation.

Otherwise, how else can humans have free will or be responsible for their own actions? And, how can God answer prayers if God cannot, by creating a deterministic and pre-known system, be open to changes in interaction. Prayer makes no sense if God cannot be open to answering those prayers by planning and knowing all events past, present, and future.

For Process Theology to hold up, especially in regards to the concept of free will, it must be shown that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive, or else this is an unwarranted premise. IMO, there is no such valid argument, so free will and determinism are compatible. That means that even if God has foreknowledge of event x, I still am responsible for the happening of x and the consequences.

This is because free will and moral responsibility are basically one in the same: one cannot be held accountable unless he was free to act, or if one was not free to act, then he cannot be accountable. So, what is moral responsibility? In a nut shell it is the mental competence one has of comprehending their reasons and motives for acting, as well as understanding the consequences of those actions. Free will is then the actual ability one has to carry out those actions without any external or internal factor either forcing or preventing the one from acting as they wish.

So, long as there is no external or internal factor preventing or forcing me to partake in x, then I am free. As long as I understand my reasons for acting on x, I am free. The foreknowledge of God is obviously no internal factor forcing or preventing me to act, so the question is whether it is an external factor. Knowledge, even it being prior, is not a causal relation that could make an event happen. In other words, knowledge does not cause things to happen. Knowledge is to simply be consciously aware of something, so foreknowledge is the attribute of God meaning He is consciously aware of all things in the future, not necessarily that He causes or plans for all things to happen.

On top of all this, it would actually be consistent for Process thinkers to say there is such a thing as determinism, at least in the causal sense. Causal determinism is the idea that future happenings abide due to past circumstances or events. For example, that I am replying to this now was contingent on me turning the computer on, opening Firefox, typing in the CF web address, etc, etc. The actuality of me now replying wouldn't be an actuality if not one of those previous things did not happen. Think of this in relation to God and creation. God created the universe, man was in fellowship with God in the Garden, man fell, Christ was sent, and so on till where we are currently. See, if God had not created the universe, we wouldn't be here right now, and none of those other events would have happened, hence causal determinism.

God is the Living God. No where does the Bible say God is the "Static God" the "Unmoved Mover."

Likewise, no where does the Bible say God is "open," or much less "open to new experiences."

Being able to experience novelty does not mean God is not perfect, it just means God can experience novelty. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, process does a good job of explaining evil, disaster, tragedy, without impugning God as the creator and planner of that evil, which, if God knows all absolutely and planned the course of history, God would be responsible for. Now, that would be calling God imperfect as you would be attributing evil to God.

Experiencing novelty implies change. Change implies imperfection, as one either changes for the better or worse. I assume according to Process Theology, God changes for the better, since to experience novelty is something to be considered good. So, as God gains knowledge of the future as the future happens, he also changes from not knowing event x, to knowing event x. That is an internal change.

The Bible describes God as being perfect in knowledge, and that nothing escapes His knowledge. If the future is not known, then it cannot be said that God is perfect in knowledge, and thus not really perfect at all as something is missing is gained, namely the knowledge of the future.

 

[Hillel1985]

Process Theology may not argue imperfection directly, nor make any such claims, but that is what the conclusion seems to be. God can interact with creation efficiently without having an open future, which renders the assumption that it is "open ended" an unnecessary conclusion.

We believe in a Triune God. God is one, while existent as three distinct persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Without the universe, God is eternal and timeless since time began with the universe. The Father is eternal and timeless as are the Son and Holy Spirit. Once God wills to create, however, the Son becomes temporal as does the Spirit which is a thought actually grounded in Scripture (The Father created through the Son). And once the incarnation, the Son becomes temporal to a more fuller extent (physicality). Yet the Father was not incarnated, and so must have remained timeless as He did without the universe. So, while God the Father could be said to be timeless, it could also be maintained that through the Son God is also temporal and interacts directly with the world and the rest of creation.


For Process Theology to hold up, especially in regards to the concept of free will, it must be shown that free will and determinism are mutually exclusive, or else this is an unwarranted premise. IMO, there is no such valid argument, so free will and determinism are compatible. That means that even if God has foreknowledge of event x, I still am responsible for the happening of x and the consequences.

This is because free will and moral responsibility are basically one in the same: one cannot be held accountable unless he was free to act, or if one was not free to act, then he cannot be accountable. So, what is moral responsibility? In a nut shell it is the mental competence one has of comprehending their reasons and motives for acting, as well as understanding the consequences of those actions. Free will is then the actual ability one has to carry out those actions without any external or internal factor either forcing or preventing the one from acting as they wish.

So, long as there is no external or internal factor preventing or forcing me to partake in x, then I am free. As long as I understand my reasons for acting on x, I am free. The foreknowledge of God is obviously no internal factor forcing or preventing me to act, so the question is whether it is an external factor. Knowledge, even it being prior, is not a causal relation that could make an event happen. In other words, knowledge does not cause things to happen. Knowledge is to simply be consciously aware of something, so foreknowledge is the attribute of God meaning He is consciously aware of all things in the future, not necessarily that He causes or plans for all things to happen.

On top of all this, it would actually be consistent for Process thinkers to say there is such a thing as determinism, at least in the causal sense. Causal determinism is the idea that future happenings abide due to past circumstances or events. For example, that I am replying to this now was contingent on me turning the computer on, opening Firefox, typing in the CF web address, etc, etc. The actuality of me now replying wouldn't be an actuality if not one of those previous things did not happen. Think of this in relation to God and creation. God created the universe, man was in fellowship with God in the Garden, man fell, Christ was sent, and so on till where we are currently. See, if God had not created the universe, we wouldn't be here right now, and none of those other events would have happened, hence causal determinism.


Likewise, no where does the Bible say God is "open," or much less "open to new experiences."


Experiencing novelty implies change. Change implies imperfection, as one either changes for the better or worse. I assume according to Process Theology, God changes for the better, since to experience novelty is something to be considered good. So, as God gains knowledge of the future as the future happens, he also changes from not knowing event x, to knowing event x. That is an internal change.

The Bible describes God as being perfect in knowledge, and that nothing escapes His knowledge. If the future is not known, then it cannot be said that God is perfect in knowledge, and thus not really perfect at all as something is missing is gained, namely the knowledge of the future.

The problem with free will and determinism not being mutually exclusive, is that Christianity, especially the Protestestant Traditions, argue that God not only foreknows everything, but also DETERMINES everything from before time. There can be no free will or moral responsibility in this case. If God DETERMINES all in some divine cosmic plan, then we are puppets acting out our parts according to the unknown will of God. If we can do nothing apart from the will of God, if God determines and predestines our every move, action, life event, etc. how then can we still be responsible for our actions? God planned them...We just lived them out. God determined them...We are just going through the motions. This places the responsibility squarely on God, as the author and planner of our every pre-determined move.

Change doesn't imply imperfection. Perfection is "being without flaw or defect." Change is a natural consequence of interaction with others. It doesn't in anyway mean imperfection. And, scripture speaks to God's ability to change (not in nature, but in interaction).

Some examples:

B'reshit (Genesis) 6:6 And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth and His heart was saddened.

The entire book of Jonah. God sends Jonah to Nineveh to warn them that they will be destroyed because of the evil they are doing. When Jonah warns them and they repent, God forgives them and spares Nineveh. God changed his mind based on Nineveh's reaction to God. And, Jonah was mad about it and depressed.

Abraham argues with God in B'reshit and gets God to agree to sparing the cities of Sodom and Gamorrah if a certain number of righteous can be found in them.

God says in Chronicles that "if my people, who are called by my name" will repent and seek God's face, God will turn to them and forgive them.

In fact, if God cannot change God's mind or actions, then prophecy is pointless. Why warn people, if they cannot mend there ways, seek forgiveness, practice repentance and avert the punishment that was to be visited on them. It just doesn't make sense.

The scriptures are replete with examples of God changing God's mind and actions based on human actions and interactions. They are replete with human action causing an emotional response from God.

It is only a mind and Christianity so affected by ancient Greek philosophy and Greek ideas of "perfection" that would say that being able to respond, do new things, or change ones mind is somehow imperfection. God is a living God, not a static, emotionless, watchmaker deity.

 

[Johnnz]

"The problem with free will and determinism not being mutually exclusive, is that Christianity, especially the Protestestant Traditions, argue that God not only foreknows everything, but also DETERMINES everything from before time. There can be no free will or moral responsibility in this case. If God DETERMINES all in some divine cosmic plan, then we are puppets acting out our parts according to the unknown will of God. If we can do nothing apart from the will of God, if God determines and predestines our every move, action, life event, etc. how then can we still be responsible for our actions? God planned them...We just lived them out. God determined them...We are just going through the motions. This places the responsibility squarely on God, as the author and planner of our every pre-determined move."

Some do believe that, but not all. I don't.

John
NZ

 

[razeontherock]

Is that the Native American in you?

It certainly explains some of your more obscure answers

Yeah, you can tell I'm part NDN by my pic (It was a Mexican tribe. Just put a sombrero on me and I fit right in with a mariachi band)

 

[razeontherock]

Well, you have a little cross there that says you're a Christian. I think if you call yourself a Christian, then you have to believe what Christians believe. Otherwise, I could call myself a Christian--after all, I like Jesus Christ, too.

"Christian" is not some monolithic block of lemmings, unable to think for ourselves.

 

[razeontherock]

Despite all the previously posted rhubarb, you raise a good point. Is being a Christian really being a Christian when one holds a view of God which most would describe as un-biblical?

According to my understanding of panentheism holds that God is subject to change (being in part within creation itself) which is in line with process theology. Process theology denies that God is in Himself perfect and complete, something central to Christian and Jewish belief.

Panentheism and henotheism are both perfectly Biblical. Neither indicates God is changeable.

 

[razeontherock]

What a very fundamentalist approach to what it means to be Christian, which simply means "Christ follower." That is the problem, both secularists and fundamentalists take the same approach to God, "absolutism." Being a panentheist does not make one less Christian than one who takes a supernatural theistic approach to Christianity. Christianity, as with most religious traditions, is very diverse, and has always been so. So, to say that any one way of speaking of God is "Christian" and anything else is not is fallacious. After all, the Christian writings are as diverse as the people who call themselves Christian. That diversity is not convenient for those wishing to box people in, but it is reality.

Joseph's coat of many colors (And post #27 needs to be inserted into every thread where unbelievers claim that God is unjust for punishing mankind)

 

[razeontherock]

I would. As would many Rabbis and Jewish thinkers

As does Scripture! (Attest that God can experience new things)

 

[elopez]

The problem with free will and determinism not being mutually exclusive, is that Christianity, especially the Protestestant Traditions, argue that God not only foreknows everything, but also DETERMINES everything from before time.

I am not a Protestant. I am not arguing from that point of view, but rather a Catholic view. In fact, I argued against the idea that God's foreknowledge equates to any type of causation. Everything is foreknown without time and the universe, so everything is known eternally. Not all that is foreknown of is directly caused by foreknowing, so only some things are caused by God, not all.

In relation to determinism, it is being used in the philosophical sense of causal determinism, as in events of the future happen due to past circumstances and other events or conditions. Everything is already determined by everything that happened in the past going back to God's first creative act.

There can be no free will or moral responsibility in this case. If God DETERMINES all in some divine cosmic plan, then we are puppets acting out our parts according to the unknown will of God. If we can do nothing apart from the will of God, if God determines and predestines our every move, action, life event, etc. how then can we still be responsible for our actions? God planned them...We just lived them out. God determined them...We are just going through the motions. This places the responsibility squarely on God, as the author and planner of our every pre-determined move.

You are arguing against the wrong case, something that I have not said, and have actually argued against. That makes this nothing but a straw - man argument. All things are determined because of God's creative act that lead to a causal chain to where we are now. God does not determine everything as God is not involved in literally everything God does not predestine everything. Only matters of man's salvation are predestined, nothing else.

Free will is compatible with predestination and determinism here. It was already said how this is. I would go back and read what I read then reply.

Change doesn't imply imperfection. Perfection is "being without flaw or defect." Change is a natural consequence of interaction with others. It doesn't in anyway mean imperfection. And, scripture speaks to God's ability to change (not in nature, but in interaction).

The fact that we have a flaw or defect would make us imperfect, hence change implies perfection. If god has no knowledge of the future and experiences it and so knows it, then there is change. If there is change there is imperfection.

Some examples:

B'reshit (Genesis) 6:6 And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth and His heart was saddened.

What exactly is the change here? This simply means God exhibited sorrow. I don't see how that means change.

The entire book of Jonah. God sends Jonah to Nineveh to warn them that they will be destroyed because of the evil they are doing. When Jonah warns them and they repent, God forgives them and spares Nineveh. God changed his mind based on Nineveh's reaction to God. And, Jonah was mad about it and depressed.

Abraham argues with God in B'reshit and gets God to agree to sparing the cities of Sodom and Gamorrah if a certain number of righteous can be found in them.

God says in Chronicles that "if my people, who are called by my name" will repent and seek God's face, God will turn to them and forgive them.

None of those instances suggests that there is a gain of knowledge of something that God did not know about. God already knows all. He already knows that He is going to change His course of action.

In fact, if God cannot change God's mind or actions, then prophecy is pointless. Why warn people, if they cannot mend there ways, seek forgiveness, practice repentance and avert the punishment that was to be visited on them. It just doesn't make sense.

Let me ask you this. Do you think God can lie? As a disclaimer, consider this verse:

"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" - Numbers 23:19

The scriptures are replete with examples of God changing God's mind and actions based on human actions and interactions. They are replete with human action causing an emotional response from God.

God does not change His mind. If we begin to think that, why not think there is something wrong with the plan? Scripture states God does not change His mind.

It is only a mind and Christianity so affected by ancient Greek philosophy and Greek ideas of "perfection" that would say that being able to respond, do new things, or change ones mind is somehow imperfection. God is a living God, not a static, emotionless, watchmaker deity.

No. Even according to the definition of imperfect you gave, change can still be applied.

 

[Edward the Theist]

What a very fundamentalist approach to what it means to be Christian, which simply means "Christ follower." That is the problem, both secularists and fundamentalists take the same approach to God, "absolutism." Being a panentheist does not make one less Christian than one who takes a supernatural theistic approach to Christianity. Christianity, as with most religious traditions, is very diverse, and has always been so. So, to say that any one way of speaking of God is "Christian" and anything else is not is fallacious. After all, the Christian writings are as diverse as the people who call themselves Christian. That diversity is not convenient for those wishing to box people in, but it is reality.

OK, fine. I just figured that most Christians viewed God as "not-the-same-thing" as His creation. I mean, the concept of sin kind of breaks down if one believes that all things are of the substance of God. It would be like me punishing my hand for stealing something.

Any kind of monistic thinking about God immediately eliminates the concept of sin. Take away sin and the entire Passion Play is without merit. Take away sin, and Jesus is just kind of a foolish prophet.

"Christian" is not some monolithic block of lemmings, unable to think for ourselves.

I have recently come to realize that Christians are whatever they need to be at the time. I met a guy who even claimed he wasn't a "Christian" and wasn't "religious" even though he went to church every week with his family. Rather he stressed that he was a "believer." HUGE DIFFERENCE!