As Dan has been talking about a sermon his pastor gave, a number of questions have arisen. What I'd like to see Dan do is to take a step back and give his thoughts on .basically three questions. I've opened up tree posts below with the questions and I'd appreciate it if Dan would write at whatever length he wants to on the answers. You might notice that it's really more than three questions. What Ive tried to do is to ask several different questions, or the same question in different ways in order to set the table.
I'm going to ask that we all follow a couple of ground rules.
Dan
Take all the time you need.
Please be as thorough as you can
Feel free to offer any source or backup material you need to make your points
Please keep the expletives and other unproductive language to a minimum
Not Dan
Don't comment on any of these threads.
I may open up a thread where people can ask questions or for clarification if I feel it necessary. The only reason why I would comment myself is to ask direct clarifying questions, but I will try to avoid that if at all possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Dan,
I’m intentionally responding here rather than in the specific posts, so as to give you as much room as you need.
As to what I think, for now I appreciate you responding in whatever way and to whatever extent you choose. I tried to be open ended and non specific to allow you as much freedom as you would take and use.
As to what I’m looking for. I think I’ve been clear. I’m looking for you to give as much or as little answer as you feel comfortable with. I want you to have the freedom to answer however you want without any intrusion.
You appear to be espousing/or close to espousing a worldview of some sort, and I’m trying to give you the space and freedom to flesh that out to the degree you are comfortable.
I really don’t want to lead or impede you in any way, but would you object to a minimal number of suggestions or questions on things I’d appreciate you exploring more deeply?
If not I’ll understand, Just let me know.
Suggest away.
For now.
You made reference to “everything” or “every good thing” coming from God.
It sounds as if you are saying that the “good” things come from God and the not good from somewhere else.
If you could expend on the following, I’d appreciate it.
If everything came from God, what happened to make some things/people not good, while some things remain good?
Is good am inherent quality, and what (in a meta sense) is good?
If God only created the good things/then where did the not good things come from?
Thanks for whatever you chooose to do. If you could please respond in the appropriate thread that would minimize confusion.
Do you think that there will ever be any sort of final setting things to right? Or are you suggesting that the best we can hope for is a gradual improvement?
Again, thanks.
Again, I don't think any of us know the details.
Rationally speaking, because ex nihilo problems, I believe in a Creator God... this makes sense to me. You have to have something to start Stuff happening. This, of course, is not unique thinking to me, it's a common starting point for the notion of theism.
I further believe in the notion of a good God. I think this because, as philosophers have oft noted, the notion of morality is in-built in humanity. Where does this come from? I'm sure you're familiar with arguments like this from CS Lewis and others. It's a deep discussion and if it's okay, I'll lean on these other thinkers to explain the point.
If we are willing to accept the notion of a God and a Good God, at that, then I believe it is rational that all good things are of this Good God, or perhaps original to this Good God, or inspired by... Again, I don't know that anyone knows exactly how that might play out, but it seems reasonable in general to accept this. At least to me and many others.
(Would a Good God give us Bad Things, as Jesus alluded to, after all...)
Given, then, a Good God that "gives," "Inspires," "Wills..." whatever Good for all, then it seems reasonable that that which is not Good is not given or inspired or willed by God.
Seems reasonable to me.
Now, knowing humanity, knowing our failures - sometimes mighty failures - I think most rational people can agree that humanity has a "sin problem," if I might borrow from the old Evangelicals. We mess up. We do wrong. We make mistakes.
Thus, I think it is observable that the "not good" comes from humanity, rather than a Good God.
...
I’ll copy paste your answers to the appropriate posts when I have time, so don’t worry about that.
For now, one clarification, you sound as though you believe that there is some sort of actual being who exists that would be God. Would that be an accurate conclusion to draw from what you’ve said?
I’m sorry, I know I said one.
How many of theses conclusions are based on significant amounts of research?
Yes, I believe in God, an actual being that exists.
I've spent a lifetime giving thought to all of these questions, reading what others have written about these matters. I don't know if you call that a "significant amount of research" or not. I'm not sure what research would look like in these philosophical questions, beyond pondering, giving thought to, reflecting upon...
Will you be answering my questions to you, as well?
I was hoping that we could focus on helping me understand where you are coming from and what that looks like. I can try to come up with someplace to answer your questions, if you like. My hope was to keep the three topics contained to just your uninterrupted thoughts.
It seems as if though you are removing these metaphysical types of questions from the realm of even being possibly considered as true, is that the case?
Nope.
And I think I'd rather engage in a conversation, not an inquisition. If you'd like it to be a two way conversation, I'll continue.
Interesting, I set this up as a way to allow you free reign to explain and help me understand your worldview and theology, yet now you’d like to change the ground rules.
I guess if you’re not interested in the open unlimited forum, which is intentionally set up for you to expound without limits, but would rather go a different direction I’ll try to open a post where I answer your questions.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could keep your responses to things relating to the three original posts, in the appropriate place. If not, I’ll start moving things around.
You asked me if I'd consent to answering some questions. I agreed, and asked some clarifying questions for you along the way.
I'm glad to engage in a conversation, with back and forth. I'm less inclined to take part in an interrogation, with no equal response from you.
Your call.
What part of my last comment was unclear? I told you I’d answer your questions if the offer of unlimited space to clarify as freely as you want to.
I’ll do a separate post tomorrow where I’ll answer your questions.
I was just explaining my reasoning, as you were appearing to have hurt feelings that I was asking you questions.
I’ve tried to be respectful, appreciative and kind for doing this.
As have I. And it is appreciated.
No I don’t have hurt feelings, I was trying to allow you to do one thing that has been helpful in me understanding your worldview better. But now, instead of what I was hoping to do, you’ve decided that if I don’t do what you want you’re done. It’s not anything beyond the fact that it’s going to bring a level of complexity to what should have been pretty straightforward.
Post a Comment