tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post5754210489724580042..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: The Big Problem about the whole business of Omni-GodBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-30119459243748944142022-02-24T15:26:09.990+00:002022-02-24T15:26:09.990+00:00@FX - No, that is a consequence of the assumptions...@FX - No, that is a consequence of the assumptions, not one of the assumptions. <br /><br />The description of Jesus's marriage is in the Fourth Gospel plainly enough, from a common sense reading - as I referenced. Once one has decided - on the basis of the assumptions I describe - that the Fourth Gospel is the most authoritative part of the Bible - then it follows that Jesus was married to Mary. <br /><br />This fits with Mormon metaphysical theology that God the creator (Jesus's Mother and Father - and yours and mine) is a dyad of man and woman - which I also believe to be true; but my knowledge of Jesus's marriage did not derive from Mormonism but from the Fourth Gospel. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-54716366728484695172022-02-24T14:42:57.602+00:002022-02-24T14:42:57.602+00:00Everyone has assumptions, yes. Of your Three Assum...Everyone has assumptions, yes. Of your Three Assumptions in Lazarus Writes the core is monogamous marriage of Christ. <br /><br />But your or the Mormon view of the primacy of marriage takes away a kind spiritual purity that was common throughout history: celibacy, not being trapped by women or materialism, and deep focus on God's Word. <br /><br />Which is what the Bible shows for Jesus too. Why alter this is mystifying. For whatever or whomever gains something else is taken away.<br /><br />My assumption was that real science could test what the Bible says and I am satisfied the most important aspect is true.<br /><br />Based on my research the Bible is descriptive of how interacting with Jah works; and it's more literal than people want to think.<br /><br />Faculty Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-65118642562907414552022-02-23T22:25:58.191+00:002022-02-23T22:25:58.191+00:00@FX - If you want to know my understanding of the ...@FX - If you want to know my understanding of the Bible - read the mini-book Lazarus Writes (linked in the sidebar). My point is that most people, including you, are making many and big assumptions about how the Bible should be read - but you either don't realize or deny that you are indeed making multiple assumptions. I tell you what My assumptions are, and why I make them. You may disagree of course - but they are what seem valid to me. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-83631022963448323132022-02-23T22:22:52.047+00:002022-02-23T22:22:52.047+00:00@Jack - I have read couple of books and some essay...@Jack - I have read couple of books and some essays by Greg Boyd, he raises important problems but doesn't solve them. His ideas are not coherent IMO - he just kicks the can of problems, but does not address that the surface difficulties arise from the level of the fundamental metaphysical assumptions of traditional-orthodox theology - assumptions which he apparently still believes. Indeed, it was reading Greg Boyd's God at War that made me realize that classical theology could never produce a genuinely deep yet clear account of the origins of evil. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-6471017854937778212022-02-23T21:39:54.154+00:002022-02-23T21:39:54.154+00:00You will probably enjoy this site Dr Charlton
htt...You will probably enjoy this site Dr Charlton<br /><br />https://reknew.org/2007/12/what-do-you-think-of-the-classical-view-that-god-is-impassible/<br /><br />https://reknew.org/2017/04/classical-theisms-unnecessary-paradoxes/<br /><br />https://reknew.org/tag/classical-theism/Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-30446031918230105842022-02-23T08:35:22.056+00:002022-02-23T08:35:22.056+00:00sykes,
I agree with your overall observations - t...sykes,<br /><br />I agree with your overall observations - they mostly match my empirical testing of the reports in the Bible of the Being known as Jah. <br /><br />Though I think He sees the future to some degree, perhaps to a great degree.<br /><br /><br /><br />Faculty Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-2254331970549279342022-02-22T20:24:27.739+00:002022-02-22T20:24:27.739+00:00@Frank - Yes, that is the psychology that I someti...@Frank - Yes, that is the psychology that I sometimes seem to perceive. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-67194165530660052152022-02-22T20:24:03.897+00:002022-02-22T20:24:03.897+00:00The Big Problem is the strange insistence on ignor...The Big Problem is the strange insistence on ignoring the Bible.<br /><br />The Bible clearly shows God is not an OmniGod: Jehovah asks Satan where has he been in the book of Job; Jehovah regrets flooding the Earth so gives a rainbow to humanity as a sign it won't happen again. So not omniscient and not omnipotent. Crystal clear.<br /><br />So why say otherwise? <br /><br />While abstractions and ancient philosophy have a role there has been a lot of time to align with the Bible so it looks very spiritually suspect.<br /><br />Another Example on politics and the Bible. The Bible clearly does not list democracy. So why support it? <br /><br />The Bible shows the best model for society is direction by prophets in tune with Jehovah's will. <br /><br />Then if that can't be borne since His rules **seem** too strict, then a King (who will then tax you worse)!<br /><br />Simple. Clear. Solved. <br /><br />Jesus also was no democracy advocate. <br /><br />So why are Christians universally not supportive of a theocracy first, a monarchy second? <br /><br />Faculty Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-34900959815375986212022-02-22T15:19:30.102+00:002022-02-22T15:19:30.102+00:00@sykes - But I am a Christian, not a Jew! There wa...@sykes - But I am a Christian, not a Jew! There was this business of Jesus, which changed everything, forever. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-86443818120040293372022-02-22T14:44:22.751+00:002022-02-22T14:44:22.751+00:00Yahweh is if anything a personal God, and people h...Yahweh is if anything a personal God, and people have direct experience of him.<br /><br />He also solves the theodicy problem. Yahweh is neither omnipotent nor omniscient nor omnipresent nor benevolent. He walks the Earth with his angels trying to find out what is going on. He has no clue as to the future. And his relationships with people are transactional: if you do this and that for me, I will do that and this for you.<br /><br />You might spend more time reading the Old Testament and less reading John, who I admit is by far the most interesting Gospel.sykes.1https://www.blogger.com/profile/10954672321945289871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-58117545273895169782022-02-22T13:20:31.355+00:002022-02-22T13:20:31.355+00:00Christians who downplay anthropomorphic traits lik...Christians who downplay anthropomorphic traits like loving father -- claiming that God is not technically our biological father but a completely different category of being, hence does not love us in the same way a biological father does or can -- are usually very adamant about enthusiastically applying certain sociomorphic traits, i.e. God as supreme sovereign, feudal lord, king, etc. <br /><br />This goes beyond mere ontological considerations. In fact, I sense it reveals something akin to thinly-veiled misanthropy and/or self-loathing -- the sinful, limited nature of man simply cannot be allowed to tarnish the greatness and supremacy of God. Thus, the only relationship a Christian should aim for in this life is one of fealty. Anything else risks the sin of "not knowing your place in Creation."<br /><br />Personal relationships between the divine and the human are indispensable! It is through them that the deeper meanings and purposes of Creation -- salvation, theosis, heaven, the raising up of divinized co-creators -- is revealed. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> Francis Bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11063224017320651978noreply@blogger.com