Discussion thread: One on One: AMR and JCWR on the Temporality of God

[Nathon Detroit]

We can discuss the One on One here.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53669

To be honest I really don't know much about JCWR and I don't know what prompted this debate so I have no idea how this will go or how interesting it will be.

 

[assuranceagent]

I'm looking forward to it. :thumb:

I admire AMR's theological knowledge and ability in debate and JCWR has proven himself to be nothing if not irenic, courteous and intellectually up to the challenge.

Let the games begin!

 

[Bob Enyart]

nothing

nothing

I know this is a kinder gentler TOL.

But come on now!! I think so far AMR has basically said nothing.

Nothing!

-Bob Enyart

p.s. Come to think of it though, there's less there than there normally is to disagree with

 

[kmoney]

Cool?? :idunno:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I know this is a kinder gentler TOL.

But come on now!! I think so far AMR has basically said nothing.

Nothing!

:rotfl:

 

[drbrumley]

That's too funny :chuckle:

 

[godrulz]

We can discuss the One on One here.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53588

To be honest I really don't know much about JCWR and I don't know what prompted this debate so I have no idea how this will go or how interesting it will be.

The link goes to a Christmas thread?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Oooops. It's fixed now. Sorry!!!

Here is the right link.

 

[Nick M]

I know this is a kinder gentler TOL.

But come on now!! I think so far AMR has basically said nothing.

Nothing!

-Bob Enyart

p.s. Come to think of it though, there's less there than there normally is to disagree with

Yet with all his bad theology, he is in the Body of Christ because he believes he has failed, and that Jesus died for his sin and that the Father raised the son from the dead.

And others that try really hard aren't.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

JCWR, has made his first post. Very interesting. :up:

I like the way he kept it short and understandable.... call me lazy but my eyes glaze over when I see long posts.

 

[godrulz]

JCWR despises me, from what I can tell. I am surprised he is opposing AMR, another one who does not like me.

I must say that I am cheering for JCWR, because I think he is right on track.

The one issue for credibility, though, is that his view is actually the A-theory of time, the one Open Theists resonate with. He is defending the A-theory, but calling it the B-theory.

Could someone tell him to look into that before AMR thinks he lacks credibility?

Keep his content, but correct his view to A vs B theory (A is dynamic/temporal; B is static/timeless).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I know this is a kinder gentler TOL.

But come on now!! I think so far AMR has basically said nothing.

Nothing!

-Bob Enyart

p.s. Come to think of it though, there's less there than there normally is to disagree with

For a moment there, Bob, I thought you actually understood the nature of entropy when applied to information theory. Oh, the irony! :squint:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

JCWR, has made his first post. Very interesting. :up:

I like the way he kept it short and understandable.... call me lazy but my eyes glaze over when I see long posts.

Prepare yourself for some serious glazing to come, then. I am up next in the debate.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Prepare yourself for some serious glazing to come, then. I am up next in the debate.

Oh trust me I know... but it's all good because I haven't been sleeping so well lately.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The one issue for credibility, though, is that his view is actually the A-theory of time, the one Open Theists resonate with. He is defending the A-theory, but calling it the B-theory.

Could someone tell him to look into that before AMR thinks he lacks credibility?

Keep his content, but correct his view to A vs B theory (A is dynamic/temporal; B is static/timeless).

This from one who is a bastion of credibility? :rotfl:

Anyway, the debate will proceed despite JCWR's apparent confusion on the topic. I will try and clear things up for you both.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Keep his content, but correct his view to A vs B theory (A is dynamic/temporal; B is static/timeless).

I hope this doesn't turn into a "Battle of the Network Labels".

Theological terms bore me to tears. Lets just debate the concepts!

 

[Stripe]

JCWR despises me, from what I can tell. I am surprised he is opposing AMR, another one who does not like me.

:rotfl:

When the guys who don't like you can only agree on one thing, i.e. that they don't like you, it's time to be worried ..

 

[CabinetMaker]

I have always viewed God as atemporal. God created time and He exists outside of our concept of time. The alternative is somewhat frightening. If God is limited by time, then time existed before God and limits God. It raises the question of who created time.

It may just be a misunderstanding on my part that will be cleared up as the one-on-one progresses.

Time will tell.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

If God is limited by time, then time existed before God and limits God. It raises the question of who created time.

Why??

Maybe time is merely the byproduct of a living, rational creator God. In other words... there is simply no reason to assume that time was created... after all, a time before time is irrational. Time exists because a rational, living God exists.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Why??

Maybe time is merely the byproduct of a living, rational creator God. In other words... there is simply no reason to assume that time was created... after all, a time before time is irrational. Time exists because a rational, living God exists.

Ok we maybe creating a side arguement here, but doesnt your line say that god either created by intention ( creation ) or created by proxy (byproduct), both suggest that God creates time.