- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
You agree that immaterial/intangible angels are material/tangible? Huh?I agree with all of this.
Upvote
0
You agree that immaterial/intangible angels are material/tangible? Huh?I agree with all of this.
No. You've introduced a new category here called "origin of thought". I've simply asked you how the intangible can impact the tangible, and vice versa.I don't think it's this simple. Missing money is not comparable to the nature of free will and the origin thought which are very different types of things. As you would call it, category mistake.
@YouAreAwesome,
An Open Theist like yourself (rightly) asserts that God cannot foreknow a free act and thus He learns something every time He observes one - He learns a newly-added fact of history. The question is, how does an immaterial God observe events? Surely, if He is too intangible to be impacted by sensory stimuli, He cannot observe anything. Here too, immaterialism is incoherent.
How does that solve the problem. If he ventures to the scene to investigate, He won't observe anything without tangible sensory stimuli impacting His - intangible mind?I believe something it is probably quite shocking to most, but I believe He can't see what's going on physically, but can learn about our spiritual state and emotional wellbeing. As we learn in verses such as Genesis 18:20-21,
Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great. Because their sin is so grievous, I will go down to see if their actions fully justify the outcry that has reached Me. If not, I will find out."
God had to go looking for Adam and Eve because He didn't know where they were (Genesis 3:9).
There's also Genesis 4:9-10,
"And the LORD said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” “I do not know!” he answered. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.
God could hear the injustice and the pain but didn't know the physical location it occurred. So as you can see I think differently to Open Theists on this bit and I've never been challenged on it, so please feel free to show me that this view is inconsistent in some way.
The claim that heaven is eternal with no beginning or end is only strange to us because everything in this world has a beginning and an end. In fact, when we try to fathom something without beginning it becomes illogical. This in itself should lead us to realise that a place with no beginning must exist, but cannot exist logically in our universe -- therefore it exists outside of our universe and in "another dimension" (sorry), i.e. heaven. It's the only viable option. Nothing starts in and of itself via logical sequence without temporal sequence. Can you give an example of logical sequence that doesn't require time that might represent the beginning of God?That's a bit of an odd claim, isn't it?
I agree that they are tangible when they enter this earth realm. But in their own realm they have their own spacial dimensions and their own physics. Specifically light works differently which is one of the most common things you hear from those who have died and gone to heaven.You agree that immaterial/intangible angels are material/tangible? Huh?
Instead of spelling out each of the incoherent aspects of your statement, let's simply reiterate a scenario introduced on the other thread. The point is to impugn the notion that heaven is fundamentally different than our current realm. As follows:I agree that they are tangible when they enter this earth realm. But in their own realm they have their own spacial dimensions and their own physics. Specifically light works differently which is one of the most common things you hear from those who have died and gone to heaven.
There are too many non-sequitur assertions made here, and none of it is spectacularly lucid, including the question raised. I don't have the energy to try to unravel all this. Moving on.The claim that heaven is eternal with no beginning or end is only strange to us because everything in this world has a beginning and an end. In fact, when we try to fathom something without beginning it becomes illogical. This in itself should lead us to realise that a place with no beginning must exist, but cannot exist logically in our universe -- therefore it exists outside of our universe and in "another dimension" (sorry), i.e. heaven. It's the only viable option. Nothing starts in and of itself via logical sequence without temporal sequence. Can you give an example of logical sequence that doesn't require time that might represent the beginning of God?
One name, one family unit, one in many decisions such as where to live and how to spend money, one in direction in life etc.Yes it does. Sexual intercourse is a physical union where two bodies interlock to form one contiguous block of flesh.
I think you're alluding to the fact that they don't mutually dissolve to the loss of their respective identities, but such is not required to form one flesh. Consider this analogy:
"I interlocked the puzzle pieces to form one picture".
Here's what Paul said:
"The two [i.e. Christ and the church] become one flesh."
You are claiming that, even in Genesis, "one flesh" is already non-literal (and thus symbolic). And then "one flesh" is again symbolic in Ephesians? Thus the original symbolism is now being used to symbolize - another symbol? Doesn't make sense. Symbols are used to symbolize the literal reality, not another symbol. Moreover, all exegetes, including yourself, are aware of metaphor/simile indicators in the Greek, conspicuously absent here.
Paul could have used symbolic language such as, "The union of husband and wife as one flesh was a figure of the church." And clearly Paul wasn't averse to such language, because he regarded Adam as a "figure of the [second Adam] to come" (Rom 5:12). Yet he refrained from such symbolic language because he was speaking literally.
As with the puzzle pieces interlocking, "one flesh" is an interlock by spatial juxtaposition. And we know that the Third Person entering our bodies is Christ (the husband) spatially juxtaposing Himself to His church (His bride).
Let's summarize. In Genesis, "one flesh" isn't specifically a symbol of marriage. It's a physical juxtaposition known as sexual intercourse. It definitely isn't a symbol of marriage, because Paul even says that a man becomes one flesh with a harlot (1Cor 6). Therefore Paul is clearly referring to spatial juxtaposition - and according to him the byproduct is "one flesh". Again, based on Eph 5 alone, the exegete is warranted in rejecting immaterialism.
One what? One flesh - and that only during sex. They certainly are not one person. As I explained at length, there is no psychological immanence in play here, only a spatial union.
Counting from 0 to 1 when time does not exist is an insoluble problem, yes. And to kick things off with free will consciousness that existed before time is equally nonsensical.Counting from zero to one is an insoluble problem?
Um...by virtue of self-propelling free will, for the millionth time.
My answer to this is lengthy. I'll try to answer briefly with no biblical proof to save time. I believe God created the universe with His hands tied from entering it, so as too preserve free will. The only way He can enter is by prayer, pain, or prophecy. Consider it took a thousand years or so of prophetic sacrifices to bring Jesus into our world for example. He literally cannot enter at will.But that's my point. Having 100 billion innocent offspring suffer for the sins of Adam and/or those of their own parents is incompatible with an infinitely kind God. That's the definition of a monster.
Suppose an evil man in your country poisons the water supply. The leader of your nation announces, "This man will die for his crime. And so will all of you. I have the antidote to the poison, but I've decided to let all of you suffer the consequences of his actions."
That leader is almost as much of an evil monster as the criminal himself. In an election, would you cast your vote in favor of such a leader? I don't think so. You'd hold him in the utmost despise and contempt.
And it's also contrary to fact, since Ezekiel 18 teaches that a child shall not suffer for the sins of his parents. Yes, I'm well aware there is a verse that seems to belie that, "I will visit the sins of the parents upon the children" but that's consistent with my theory of Adam. If we are all guilty in him already, then God has every right to visit our parent's sins upon us.
No He started afresh.No.
(1) Verses 3:16-19 - that whole passage - pronounces consequences on the human race that we all experience daily.
(2) At minimum, God exiled them from the ideal Garden - and we in turn are all born in that state of exile.
(3) Unborn fetuses suffer consequences even in the womb.
Clearly, Adam's sin impacted 100 billion innocent offspring (except with my version of Adam). Not consistent with an infinitely kind, infinitely just God.
Huh? God flooded the innocent? Not in my theodicy.
To be clear I don't believe in divine simplicity or that a born again Christian has a sinful nature. Rather our sin post salvation is that done like Adam. Adam had no sinful nature, yet sinned.@YouAreAwesome
A perennial contradiction in the evangelical version of regeneration is that it eradicates the sinful nature. After all, DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity) holds that immaterial substance is indivisible into parts. This leaves no room for a sinful nature.
Divisibility is a fact of everyday experience. How so?
(1) The most obvious way to see it is to simply ask, which cell in your brain is the real you?
(2) Another way is to reflect on pain. How is it possible to experience pain in the feet? After all, a pain signal sent from the foot to the head would only produce a headache, it wouldn't explain pain felt in the feet. Therefore the soul must be spread throughout the body from head to toe.
The physical-interlock connotation of "one flesh" is clear both in Genesis 2:24 and 1Cor 6. You've chosen a very unusual thing - you've chosen to take a verse of a didactic epistle non-literally, not based on any clear textual evidence but exclusively based on a pre-commitment to Plato. That's your prerogative. Nothing I can do about it.One name, one family unit, one in many decisions such as where to live and how to spend money, one in direction in life etc.
That doesn't solve the problem. The new birth is defined as the divine imposition of holiness. No room for sin, on the assumption of indivisibility into parts. On the other hand, if you've accepted divisibility into parts, then every theologian in church history would consider you an official subscriber to materialism.To be clear I don't believe in divine simplicity or that a born again Christian had a sinful nature. Rather our sin post salvation is that done like Adam. Adam had no sinful nature, yet sinned.
Um...the counting is done in the aftermath by people like me.Counting from 0 to 1 when time does not exist is an insoluble problem, yes. And to kick things off with free will consciousness that existed before time is equally nonsensical.
You're missing the point. Any failure on God's part to shield any of the 100 billion descendants from Adamic consequences contradicts the notion of infinite love, kindness, justice, and so on.No He started afresh.
Nope. Logically subsequent, not temporally subsequent. We've been over this - and also over the fact that immaterialists have been making similar claims for centuries. Read your own words again. Now consider this standard statement from an immaterialist.And to kick things off with free will consciousness that existed before time is equally nonsensical.
Unacceptable. Although I try to be open-minded to the idea of God making pre-commitments that, in some sense, tie His hands, an infinitely holy God is not going to pre-commit to a regimen that could lead to injustice, unkindness, and so on. That's a logical contradiction.My answer to this is lengthy. I'll try to answer briefly with no biblical proof to save time. I believe God created the universe with His hands tied from entering it, so as too preserve free will. The only way He can enter is by prayer, pain, or prophecy. Consider it took a thousand years or so of prophetic sacrifices to bring Jesus into our world for example. He literally cannot enter at will.