[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Radio Satan

I'm certain that the universe was always and eternally a thought in God's 
mind, but as to when that thought was actualized is an entirely different 
matter.  This actualization, if you will, was of course when time began.  
Did God then contain himself inside of time, even in the incarnation?- no 
way, not possible!  God basically created time and therefore He has to let 
the clock wind down, but in no way is He contained by it, but rather is 
always on the outside watching it :)
    In spite of God's transcedence I do believe "He"(for lack of a better 
pronoun for those offended) is also intimately involved "with" His creation. 
  I like and believe in your idea of actions being able to "move" God 
(although He is also the "unmoved mover" if you remember your Greek 
philosophy).  If we are indeed created in God's imagine then it must be that 
God somehow, someway has somekind of a human like qualities-yes?  I think 
you may have just helped me answer for myself part of the mystery of prayer. 
  God doesn't need us to ask for help before He can act, but again why 
should or would He if we really don't even care enough about our world or 
ourselves to ask or act.  I truly believe experientially/existentially that 
God is affected by human action/compassion, prayer being just one such 
occurrence.  For instance, if you were to see a lone person desperately 
trying to save someone else's life and even begging for someone to 
intervene, would you not be motivated to somehow respond?  I seems to me 
that a personal God would be compelled to act in such a situation.

>From: "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>
>Reply-To: "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>
>CC: Over the Rhine listserv <Over-the-Rhine at actwin_com>
>Subject: Re: Radio Satan
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 23:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
>
>On Wed, 22 May 2002, ryan richards wrote:
> > God . . . obviously choose to create the universe . . .
>
>Meaning there was a time when God existed and the universe did not, and it
>was followed by a time when God and the universe both existed?  Does God
>exist within time, then?  I sometimes wonder about that.  For a long time
>now, I've been more inclined to think of God as eternally seeing all time
>as one simultaneous instant (hmmm, a "divine instant", maybe?), in which
>case the universe has, in a sense, always been.
>
>If God is always Creator, then there has always been Creation.  If there
>has ever been a time when there was no Creation, then there was a time
>when God was not Creator.  If God went from being not-Creator to being
>Creator, then is God capable of change?  I haven't a clue.
>
>This is where I sometimes find myself quoting the new OTR album.  I have
>always wanted to believe in a God who is "transcendent" and above the
>pettiness of time.  But more and more, I find I also want to believe in a
>God to whom my being and my actions "make a difference".  I want God to be
>"moved" by me and what I do, just as people are "moved" by other people,
>by what they see in nature, and by God himself.  I want to believe in a
>God who, in some sense, "responds" to me, as I respond to him.
>
> > So the question is did God have create anything at all or could God have
> > existed (in triune form in my theology) eternally without it?
>
>That is an interesting question too, yeah.
>
> > The answer is I Don't Know, but my position (at the moment) is that if
> > the universe isn't a necessary component of God's existence then God
> > didn't have to make it.
>
>Well, that seems logical, and obvious, I think.
>
> > In my view free will is the God given ability to act outside of preset
> > conditioning.  Maybe it's best to compare humans to animals in order to
> > be convincing.  Take a cat for example, a creature that is constantly
> > reacting to it's environment.  Experiment on (in an uncruel matter of
> > course) and observe a cat's behaviour for any extended period of time
> > and you will soon learn what free will isn't.  If you make a gesture to
> > strike the cat for instance it will always react in selfdense- it Cannot
> > help it.  I, on the other hand, could choose to let someone strike me
> > for some moral cause or what have you.  If you think that Ghandi for
> > instance had an impulse to starve himself and then had no choice but to
> > follow through because his brain chemistry, which function to help him
> > survive, wouldn't let him eat a rice cake then your view of impulses
> > don't seem to jive with what seems "natural" if you will (but probably
> > won't).  More later.
>
>Well, I think a person who didn't believe in free will would simply argue
>that Ghandi, like many people, had a more complex brain than a cat, and
>thus, his actions would not have been influenced quite so directly by
>external stimuli.  But Ghandi was certainly responding to his environment
>when he went on hunger strikes -- he observed a political situation,
>formulated an opinion concerning what the most effective response to the
>situation might be, and then chose to act as he did.  If he had made
>political ideals more important to himself than his personal health, for
>whatever reason, then his actions would have been an appropriate, and
>possibly even predictable, response to his external stimuli.
>
>--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
>  "I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
>       Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
>
>---------------
>Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: