does prayer accomplish anything?

[zombie]

Evil here does not mean evil as you are thinking of it, it means calamity or problems not evil in the moral sense, i don't use the kjv

The one who creates evil things is himself evil in the moral sense.

Matthew 7:17-20

Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Evil is defined as something that causes harm, discomfort or misfortune... suffering.

Calamity per se is

1: a state of deep distress or misery caused by major misfortune or loss

2: a disastrous event marked by great loss and lasting distress and suffering
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calamity

As Matthew states, a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. A morally just god does not create suffering, evil or calamity.

the passage should not read evil in the first place. you don't have a point here because matthew is talking about morals and isa is not.

 

[zombie]

i lean more to open theist christianity.

The god of open theism is not omniscient.

yes he is.

open theism understands what omniscient means differently from what you do.

god knows all that is knowable but we don't know what is knowable or not.

 

[zombie]

Nothing exists apart from gods will.

But evil exists so the existence of evil is part of god's will.

No because evil is not doing what god would like, so literally if god wills something it is good. so god cannot will evil calamity is not the same things as evil.

 

[Bodhi]

yes he is.

open theism understands what omniscient means differently from what you do.

Open theism claims that god is learning. For one to learn, one must first fail to be omniscient.

 

[Bodhi]

No because evil is not doing what god would like, so literally if god wills something it is good. so god cannot will evil calamity is not the same things as evil.

1. If god does not create evil, he is not the creator of everything.

2. One who creates calamity is evil in the moral sense. Morals per se are based on the will to create or reduce/cease suffering. Calamity = suffering, so one who creates suffering is morally injust.

 

[zombie]

yes he is.

open theism understands what omniscient means differently from what you do.

Open theism claims that god is learning. For one to learn, one must first fail to be omniscient.

it does not claim that god is learning that is a stretch that open theism detractors bring up but it is not true if god knows all that can be know then he cannot learn anything that argument make no sense.

 

[zombie]

No because evil is not doing what god would like, so literally if god wills something it is good. so god cannot will evil calamity is not the same things as evil.

1. If god does not create evil, he is not the creator of everything.

2. One who creates calamity is evil in the moral sense. Morals per se are based on the will to create or reduce/cease suffering. Calamity = suffering, so one who creates suffering is morally injust.

First evil is not a thing but a judgement

Second creating a calamity is not in itself evil and suffering does not equal evil you are doing it again you are making jumps of logic without first understanding what evil is. Calamity = pain suffering= pain. PAIN DOES NOT EQUAL EVIL but is often an outcome of it. You can suffer and it be good you can be in a calamity and it be good. it might not feel that way but it actually is. EVIL IS DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD NOT JUST FEELING PAIN.

 

[melanated khemist]

does prayer accomplish anything?

YES, but meditation accomplishes much more

 

[Bodhi]

First evil is not a thing but a judgement

Second creating a calamity is not in itself evil and suffering does not equal evil.

True; evil is a judgement, it is subjective just the same as suffering is subjective. That's why there is no objective morality. Good and evil only exists in the minds of sentient beings but still, what I said remains true.

 

[Bodhi]

it does not claim that god is learning that is a stretch

Not really. If the open theistic god knew all, it would be classical theism. The openness of God, that is the ability to act on probabilities, is what distinguishes it from classical theism. In open theism, all is not possibly known by god; for if it were, God's status as the creator of all would mean that he dictates exactly what takes place to the T, which open theism disputes. In open theism, God knows all possibilities but does not know what choices will be made until they are determined by man. Once they are determined, the openness of God causes him to be influenced by that choice in a way which he can then respond.

 

[zombie]

it does not claim that god is learning that is a stretch

Not really. If the open theistic god knew all, it would be classical theism. The openness of God, that is the ability to act on probabilities is what distinguishes it from classical theism. In open theism, all is not possibly known by god; for if it were, God's status as the creator of all would mean that he dictates exactly what takes place to the T, which open theism disputes.

God as understood by most open theist does know all.

The disagreement is not about the perfection of Gods knowledge, both open theists and classical theists state that God is omniscient.

God always knows everything. The debate, rather, is about the content of the reality God perfectly knows so It comes down to the question of whether or not possibilities are real. to us no but to him i would say yes.

 

[Bodhi]

God as understood by most open theist does know all.

Then they're not open theists.

Open theists maintain that God does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as “possibilities.” Because God remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains “open” in His mind. This means that rather than God knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place. This is a significant redefinition of the classical doctrine of God’s omniscience. The open theist’s view of omniscience is that God has complete knowledge of the past and the present, but not the future. What God does know of the future is in reference to what he knows of “present dispositions, proclivities, inclinations, intentions and probabilities as well as they can be known.”
http://bible.org/article/examination-open-theism

It comes down to the question of whether or not possibilities are real. to us no but to him i would say yes.

I agree with you here and I'll tell you why: Possibilities are real to an omniscient and omnipotent god, that is, before he makes a conscious decision on what to will into existence. When he does will something into existence, the event takes place. For mortal man it may appear that other choices were possible but in actuality, it was god who pulled the strings and guided the direction of reality. In other words, determinism would be true when speaking of the Bible god. For mortal man, free will is an illusion and God is the only being with true free will.

 

[zombie]

God as understood by most open theist does know all.

Then they're not open theists.

Open theists maintain that God does not know what a given human being will do until he acts. They refer to such human actions as “possibilities.” Because God remains unaware of human possibilities, the future remains “open” in His mind. This means that rather than God knowing all things, He is in the process of learning new things as they take place. This is a significant redefinition of the classical doctrine of God’s omniscience. The open theist’s view of omniscience is that God has complete knowledge of the past and the present, but not the future. What God does know of the future is in reference to what he knows of “present dispositions, proclivities, inclinations, intentions and probabilities as well as they can be known.”
http://bible.org/article/examination-open-theism

It comes down to the question of whether or not possibilities are real. to us no but to him i would say yes.

I agree with you here and I'll tell you why: Possibilities are real to an omniscient and omnipotent god, that is, before he makes a conscious decision on what to will into existence. When he does will something into existence, the event takes place. Right but god does not will everything into existence For mortal man it may appear that other choices were possible RIGHT but in actuality, it was god who pulled the strings and guided the direction of reality. WRONG In other words, determinism would be true when speaking of the Bible god. For mortal man, free will is an illusion and God is the only being with true free will.

wrong once again you left out of one of god's attributes which is love and you forget that because of it we also will things into existence. Before we do, these things they only exist to god but not to us, so he has knowledge of them. If the article states that open theism denies that god is omniprescient than it is also wrong. remember i said i lean toward open thesim but i don't vomit out the understandings of what no man. my open theism rests on my understanding of the bible.

 

[Bodhi]

Right but god does not will everything into existence.

Then he is not the creator of all things contrary to what the Bible says.

remember i said i lean toward open thesim but i don't vomit out the understandings of what no man. my open theism rests on my understanding of the bible.

In other words, you define open theism as whatever you wish.

 

[zombie]

Right but god does not will everything into existence.

Then he is not the creator of all things contrary to what the Bible says.

remember i said i lean toward open thesim but i don't vomit out the understandings of what no man. my open theism rests on my understanding of the bible.

In other words, you define open theism as whatever you wish.

there are different types of o.t all hold to gods omniscent power.

which I do as well but I do not hold to it based on man but scripture that was what I mean. I answered your first comment already. Have you ever heard of o.t before I told you of it?

 

[zombie]

God does not cause all things to happen that can happen is what I mean when I say god does not wil all in to existence.

 

[Bodhi]

Have you ever heard of o.t before I told you of it?

Nah, I had to look it up

 

[Bodhi]

there are different types of o.t all hold to gods omniscent power.

I've only seen one type so far and that type denies god's complete omniscience. That's what seperates open theism from classical theism.

 

[Bodhi]

God does not cause all things to happen that can happen is what I mean when I say god does not wil all in to existence.

Here's the problem:

You say that god sees all events, our situations, choices and dispositions before creation. This is omniscience. Classical theism holds the view that god knows all things about person X, including what person X will do and think and say, before person X is created. If God creates person X, this means everything that person X does, says or thinks is what god willed because god created person X knowing exactly what would happen. Being omnipotent, God had the power to change person X's situations and dispositions before he/she was created but did not. This is not taking away free will. A person can have free will and the range for free will be limited. Before you say, out of love, God would not limit our range for free will, our range is limited every day depending on our circumstances supposedly created by god. So, assuming god is omnipotent and omniscient, we can conclude that all things are the way they are because they are the way god willed them to be.

Open theism denies god's omniscience by stating that God does not know what person X will do before person X actually does it. Maybe open theists recognized the inherent problem in classical theism and set out to address it so that they could keep the doctrine of free will by making a sacrifice on god's powers.

 

[zombie]

there are different types of o.t all hold to gods omniscent power.

I've only seen one type so far and that type denies god's complete omniscience. That's what seperates open theism from classical theism.

keep on reading there are four major position. O.t is an idea a perspective.