Theists Discuss the Unmoved Mover.

[Littlejoe]

Nick, do you want me to start another thread or split this off do as to not clutter up your book review?

[rogue06]

It's a debate tactic. Often used against creationists both of the YEC, and OEC varieties. I once encountered a guy who thought Eve being called "mother of all the living" couldn't mean she was the mother of every living creature ever, so it must mean she is a metaphor for "mother nature". Instead of the common understanding that she is the mother of all living humans.

Interestingly I've brought that up from the other side in discussions with Jorge for instance

A (semi) quick comment on your emphasis on "all"

During the account of the Flood itself we read that all flesh had become corrupted; yet the text also says that Noah was a "righteous man, blameless in his time." Thus, "all flesh" doesn’t mean all flesh since there was at least one exception. All does not mean all.

Likewise, Gen 3:20 pronounces Eve as "the mother of all living." Literally, that means that all life originated from a human woman, Eve, which nobody contends this is the case.

Are there other instances when "all" does not literally mean "all"? Definitely.

"Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth" (Genesis 41:57). Did starving Australian Aborigines come to Joseph seeking food? How about Inuits? Similarly, the famine predicted by Agabus that "took place in the days of Claudius" was said to have occurred "over all the world" (Acts 11:28).

"And the fame of David went out into all lands, and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nations" (I Chronicles 14:17). Apparently American Indians were quaking in fear at David’s reputation. But then they were apparently consoled when Solomon’s reign began because now "the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom" (I Kings 19:11).

"And horses were imported for Solomon from Egypt and from all lands"(II Chronicles 9:28).

"All the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom." (II Chronicles 9:23) – does this include rulers in America as well?

"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled" (Lk 2:1). In this case "all the world" means only the Roman Empire.

Likewise, when Cyrus declares in II Chronicles 36:23 that God "has given me all the kingdoms of the earth" he meant only the lands controlled by the Persian Empire.

"For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened" (Exodus 10:15 – KJV), though verses 12, 14 make it clear that it meant only the land of Egypt and why some other versions choose to use "whole land" instead of "whole earth."

Mark 1:5 tells us that "all the land of Judea" were baptized by John in the wilderness. Of course, we understand from the context that this does not literally mean every single human in the land of Judea.

Mark 4:34 says Jesus taught His disciples about "all things," but does anyone serious believe this included details of such things like space travel, advanced calculus and the sex life of sea slugs?

And Paul explicitly stated that the entire world was hearing the gospel (Romans 1:8; Colossians 1:6; cf. I Timothy 3:16). Later Christian theologians used these passages as "proof" that no one could possibly be living on the other side of the world. The Bible said it, they believed it, and that settled it. Nevertheless, millions of Native Americans lived in the Americas despite the theologian’s ideological objections.

These are only a few examples illustrating the fact that all does not always literally mean all.

[KingsGambit]

If I can interject with a question: Is it possible (or consistent) to reject divine impassability but not hold to open theism? I'm not convinced of the latter, though it would make sense of much of the narrative portions of the Old Testament. I'm definitely unconvinced of the former. It seems like a late philosophical supposition rather than anything one would get from reading Scripture (and I find the tactic of concluding all these various passages must be metaphorical to be unconvincing and not well supported. What would these descriptors of divine emotion be metaphors for?)

[Littlejoe]

Nick, do you want me to start another thread or split this off do as to not clutter up your book review?

[Apologiaphoenix]

First off, we can split off. Married life has me spending much less time on here and I don't post on Sundays still.

Ok, that's where I thought your were going. Anthropomorphism.

Please explain why you find that to be a sad God. I find a dynamic, interactive God exciting and refreshing!

Sad because I can have so much power over Him. I can sadden God. If God can be saddened, how can I be sure He can bring me such joy? How much power do I have if I can overpower the joy of the Trinity? Why should I expect joy in the Trinity someday if it can be so easily overcome?

Can you or can you not, refuse to do God's will? If you believe that the lost can be called to serve God but refuse, then you believe mankind can thwart God's will.

Pretty sure I've sinned today so yeah, you can refuse to do God's will.

My wife talks about a time in college when she was studying for a critical exam. She went downstairs to the lobby of her dorm to get a Dr. Pepper from the vending machine. In the lobby, sitting on one of the couches was a young lady who appeared sad. My wife says she strongly felt the Holy Spirit tell her to sit down and share the Gospel with her. My wife, shrugged it off rationalizing that she had a really hard test to study for, and it was just her imagination. About an hour later, her roommate comes into the room and says excitedly, guess what JUST happened in the Lobby, I saw this girl sitting on the couch and I felt God tell me to go talk to her and share the Gospel. I did and she accepted Christ. God's will was done, but not by the first person (at least) God was leading to talk to her. My wife did NOT fulfill God's will for her.

I'm not convinced that it's necessarily the leading of the Holy Spirit. It could have been, but I'm not sure. Either way, that doesn't really matter to the point.

Christians that commit suicide overcome God's joy wouldn't you think?

No. I don't think anything can overcome God's joy.

Your argument assumes that since Open Theist's (OT"S) take some passages literally, (which you and other traditionalists treat as anthropomorphic), then OT's must then take all passages in the Bible literally...I'm not sure how that follows? I could just as easily argue that since you take all those passages anthropomorphically you must treat all passages in the Bible anthropomorphically. It's really not a very convincing argument Nick.

The thing is I think I have a more consistent hermeneutic. You can look and say "Well these passages that talk about His emotions are literal, but the ones about His body are not." I say they're both anthropomorphic. Why should I treat one that way and not the other?

You (of course) know that nobody takes everything in the Bible literally and no one takes everything in the Bible metaphorically (anthopomorphic or otherwise). We would certainly agree I think, that genre, context, good exegisis all play a part in how one interprets Scripture. I submit though that there's no good exegetical or philosophical reason to take passages that speak of (for instance using the Biblical examples in my previous post) "God changing his mind" has to be anthropomorphic. I think the only reason it's interpreted that way by Traditionalists is because, if you admit that God does in fact change his mind, it conflicts with the Eternal Now concept of the future knowledge of God...that it's all settled facts. (That leads directly, and pretty unerringly to Fatalism if followed to it's natural conclusion.) Surely you don't take comfort in that...?

As a Christian, why wouldn't I take comfort? All things work together for good to them that love the Lord. Is that not written to give me comfort? God knows how it's going to turn out in the end. Note also that I think open theism destroys not only future knowledge but present knowledge. WHat is going on when Moses reasons with God? Moses points to things God should know apparently, but Moses knows them and God doesn't? Moses knows more than God at that point? What else does God not know that could be relevant? Maybe God could change His mind in the future with new knowledge and abandon His covenant.

Finally, I think interpreting these passages as anthropomorphic makes the meaning of the verse unclear. If God doesn’t actually change his mind, then what do the passages that explicitly declare that he does change his mind mean? Saying they’re anthropomorphic doesn’t help us. By their very nature anthropomorphic expressions, (if they’re true), must still communicate something accurate about God. For instance, where the Bible says that God has "a strong arm" we know that Scripture is telling us that God is powerful, even though we know he doesn't have literal arms. Can you perhaps explain what you think Scripture is trying to tell us about God when it says that "God changed his mind" if in fact God doesn't actually change his mind?

I think they're meant to show us the power of the mediator. The judgment is conditional. If Moses doesn't intercede, God will destroy the people of Israel, but Moses does intercede.

I also think you're missing the power of the point about an unmoved mover argument. If the argument works, then there is an unmoved mover that seems to match a lot of omni attributes. That would mean then that the Open Theist reading of Scripture is wrong. But if the open theist reading is wrong, then you need to show some flaw in the Unmoved Mover argument of Aquinas. I don't think you want to hold to a double theory of truth idea where there could be something true theologically and the opposite true philosophically. I find the argument to be much more convincing and I find the case for Open Theism both Scripturally and philosophically weak.

[Cerebrum123]

Interestingly I've brought that up from the other side in discussions with Jorge for instance

Thanks for proving my point in bringing an example of this terrible debate tactic.

[rogue06]

Thanks for proving my point in bringing an example of this terrible debate tactic.

Indeed it is an idiotic thing to say that Eve is the mother of every living creature based on Genesis 3:20.

[Littlejoe]

First off, we can split off. Married life has me spending much less time on here and I don't post on Sundays still.

I often do not post on Sundays as well!

Sad because I can have so much power over Him. I can sadden God. If God can be saddened, how can I be sure He can bring me such joy? How much power do I have if I can overpower the joy of the Trinity? Why should I expect joy in the Trinity someday if it can be so easily overcome?

God being able to empathize with our situation somehow makes Him weak?
Why do you assume a empathetic God would be overcome by his feelings to the point that He could not impart His Joy? He IS God after all...we can be sad and empathetic with someone and not be overcome. I submit that God enters into empathy by His choice, not ours.
If God has no emotions then how could you expect Him to give you His Joy? He has none, just like He has no sadness, love, anger, kindness, trust, happiness or any sense of fairness...all which are on display in Scripture. If we are to pursue our goal of becoming more like Him, then you think we should all abandon all emotions and become stoics? So, Vulcans have it right after all!
Unfortunately, humans who lack empathy are usually considered sociopathic or in more extreme cases, psychopatic.

Pretty sure I've sinned today so yeah, you can refuse to do God's will.

Well, no...Unmoved Mover entails destiny. You were destined to commit that sin, therefore, it must have actually been God's will.

I'm not convinced that it's necessarily the leading of the Holy Spirit. It could have been, but I'm not sure. Either way, that doesn't really matter to the point.

I guess you agree that regardless of whether you believe it was the leading of the Spirit or not, my wife should have stopped and engaged. That would have been the will of God regardless of the leading element?

No. I don't think anything can overcome God's joy.

What joy? God doesn't have any emotions...

Explain how God's joy was not overcome by a Christian's suicide...it would seem self-evident that it was. There can be no joy in someone taking their own life.

The thing is I think I have a more consistent hermeneutic. You can look and say "Well these passages that talk about His emotions are literal, but the ones about His body are not." I say they're both anthropomorphic. Why should I treat one that way and not the other?

Well, obviously we disagree on who's hermeneutic is more consistent. We are made in God's image, if God doesn't have a physical body, then how are we the image of God?
Rather, I think the more consistent hermeneutic is to look to Jesus as our example of what God is like and who God truly is. We see in the Gospels (particularly John) and in the writings of Paul that Jesus is God, and is the image of God. Furthermore, Jesus teaches God is a relational God, not an impassible one. Jesus himself had compassion and empathy for those in need. He was moved to act by the suffering of individuals. Jesus was moved to act by the pleas and cries of the downtrodden, and forsaken. Jesus says that he feels the pain of others in Matt. 25:41-45. We also have The Sermon on the Mount for example. Jesus says we become more like God when we show empathy, mercy, compassion, return good for evil. If we are "conformed to the image of the Son" (Rm 8:9) then do we not express positive emotions and compassion? I submit we imitate the passible and emotion God of the Bible. When Christ dies on the cross, God did not suffer? The sky was black and the earthquake happened and veil was rent....because God was unmoved by Christ's death?

As a Christian, why wouldn't I take comfort? All things work together for good to them that love the Lord. Is that not written to give me comfort? God knows how it's going to turn out in the end.

So...you believe God ordains everything that happens (since He knows all that is going to happen and doesn't stop it) so that He can make good come from it? For what end? ISTM that the parents of a child who is kidnapped, raped and tortured to death, would wonder what kind of monster God would have to be in order to let that happen. I don't see how people can be comforted by knowing God knew evil things were going to happen to you and let's them happen, and feels no sadness for you, or righteous anger on your behalf it. It just makes little sense.

Note also that I think open theism destroys not only future knowledge but present knowledge. WHat is going on when Moses reasons with God? Moses points to things God should know apparently, but Moses knows them and God doesn't? Moses knows more than God at that point? What else does God not know that could be relevant? Maybe God could change His mind in the future with new knowledge and abandon His covenant.

You sure seem to love your Reducio ad Absurdum...Why do you need to ascribe all these things to God, who is angry at Israel, and ready to destroy it? The text shows that Moses was able to change God's mind...despite God's justifiable anger.

Didn't God basically abandon his covenant? If not, why do we have a differentiation of Scripture of Old Testament (Covenant) and New Testament (covenant). Hebrews chapters 8 and 9 are replete with examples of old being done away with and the new established.

I think they're meant to show us the power of the mediator. The judgment is conditional. If Moses doesn't intercede, God will destroy the people of Israel, but Moses does intercede.

That creative I'll give you that....but anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms are supposed to explain something about the subject, in this case God, how does this explain something about God? That's just silly AP. If God does not experience emotions, then He was never angry in the first place and was never going to destroy Israel. Also, how does Moses have any power? God's mind can't be changed, therefore, He really was never going to destroy Israel as he knew Moses would intervene. Was God lying to Moses?

I also think you're missing the power of the point about an unmoved mover argument. If the argument works, then there is an unmoved mover that seems to match a lot of omni attributes. That would mean then that the Open Theist reading of Scripture is wrong. But if the open theist reading is wrong, then you need to show some flaw in the Unmoved Mover argument of Aquinas.

Did you mean to say "But if the open theist reading is right"? The argument doesn't work IMO. The basis of the theory dictates that all things that move...have to have a mover. I can move myself without help or even compunction. God doesn't have to move me necessarily. Furthermore, Unmoved mover has dualistic theology as a function of it. Are you a dualist?

I don't think you want to hold to a double theory of truth idea where there could be something true theologically and the opposite true philosophically. I find the argument to be much more convincing and I find the case for Open Theism both Scripturally and philosophically weak.

I don't think you've convinced me that I hold that. I find theologically and philosophically, Open Theism makes the most sense of Scripture. I submit, you are using the backdrop of Greek philosophy to underpin your theology. Greek thought was a long way from Hebrew thought. Greek thought that any change in God would result in a less than perfect being. Greek thought entailed the idea that flesh was bad and spirit was good (hence the dualism)...since emotions originated in the flesh, they were necessarily bad...therefore, impassibility became the standard for God. Therefore, I find classical theism to be Scripturally very weak, and philosophically corrupted.

[Littlejoe]

If I can interject with a question: Is it possible (or consistent) to reject divine impassability but not hold to open theism? I'm not convinced of the latter, though it would make sense of much of the narrative portions of the Old Testament. I'm definitely unconvinced of the former. It seems like a late philosophical supposition rather than anything one would get from reading Scripture (and I find the tactic of concluding all these various passages must be metaphorical to be unconvincing and not well supported. What would these descriptors of divine emotion be metaphors for?)

I'm know Richard Bauckham rejects divine impassibility, but AFAIK he is not an Open Theist...at least I can't find anything that says he is...

[Littlejoe]

The more I read about Thomism, and of Thomas Aquinas own the more I reject it. I used to find some of it convincing, but not anymore.

I am not an open theist btw. I haven't seen good explanations of God's foreknowledge in the Bible by them yet. I'll admit I haven't done much research on the issue, just putting this part in the let people here know where I'm coming from.

Open View theist (OVT) have been accused of "limiting God's knowledge". It's true that early in the movement, that some speakers, still partially thinking from a Classical View (CV), would make statements that implied this with such statements as "God deliberately limits His knowledge" or "God knows all that is knowable". The reason these statement (IMO) are misleading is they assume the CV view that the future already exists, but that God was blind to it (whether purposefully or ignorantly). I believe the problem is not what God knows, but what is the nature of the future. IF you accept the Greek view that the future already exists, then OVT must necessarily be wrong. For God is Omniscient. OVT's agree with CV's on that. But...what if the future does not exist? Then the question becomes, how could even God know about something that does not exist? Does God know about round triangles? How about married bachelors? They're logical impossibilities so, I don't think it limits God's knowledge to not know about those things....those things just don't exist. My question is, why do we assume the future already exists? It may well already exist...and if so, then I'm wrong. But the Greeks (among others) believe in Fate or destiny...

Here's the thing, if you believe the future exists just like the past exists, then the future is as unchangeable as the past. We are then, just actors in the play that God set up.

Explanations of God's foreknowledge in the Bible usually don't stand up to scrutiny, but, OVT's such as myself will readily admit that God is ultimately God and in certain special circumstances, knows exactly when, where and how something will take place. OVT's that are honest will admit that the future is as settled as God wants it to be, but that it at least is open to possibilities.

I can get deeper into a philosophical "proof" that to me explains it if you're interested.

[Cerebrum123]

Open View theist (OVT) have been accused of "limiting God's knowledge". It's true that early in the movement, that some speakers, still partially thinking from a Classical View (CV), would make statements that implied this with such statements as "God deliberately limits His knowledge" or "God knows all that is knowable". The reason these statement (IMO) are misleading is they assume the CV view that the future already exists, but that God was blind to it (whether purposefully or ignorantly). I believe the problem is not what God knows, but what is the nature of the future. IF you accept the Greek view that the future already exists, then OVT must necessarily be wrong. For God is Omniscient. OVT's agree with CV's on that. But...what if the future does not exist? Then the question becomes, how could even God know about something that does not exist? Does God know about round triangles? How about married bachelors? They're logical impossibilities so, I don't think it limits God's knowledge to not know about those things....those things just don't exist. My question is, why do we assume the future already exists? It may well already exist...and if so, then I'm wrong. But the Greeks (among others) believe in Fate or destiny...

Here's the thing, if you believe the future exists just like the past exists, then the future is as unchangeable as the past. We are then, just actors in the play that God set up.

Explanations of God's foreknowledge in the Bible usually don't stand up to scrutiny, but, OVT's such as myself will readily admit that God is ultimately God and in certain special circumstances, knows exactly when, where and how something will take place. OVT's that are honest will admit that the future is as settled as God wants it to be, but that it at least is open to possibilities.

I can get deeper into a philosophical "proof" that to me explains it if you're interested.

Perhaps I'm a bit closer to Open Theism than I realized. I've been thinking something along the parts I underlined might be possible.

One thing that makes me wonder about a fixed future is that at times I've had dreams that were fulfilled point by point. It was like reliving parts of my life twice.

[Apologiaphoenix]

God being able to empathize with our situation somehow makes Him weak?

Yes. It means that I can change God. How does the finite change the infinite? I don't want a God who feels with me. I want a God who is there with me and who can help me.

Why do you assume a empathetic God would be overcome by his feelings to the point that He could not impart His Joy? He IS God after all...we can be sad and empathetic with someone and not be overcome. I submit that God enters into empathy by His choice, not ours.

Because if I take Scripture in that sense that is what I see. What of those eternally separated from God? Even if one accepts conditional immortality, will God not be always aware of those who could have been there? I also think emotions mean that something is in motion and if something is in motion, it is subject to change. Yet Scripture says God does not change.

If God has no emotions then how could you expect Him to give you His Joy? He has none, just like He has no sadness, love, anger, kindness, trust, happiness or any sense of fairness...all which are on display in Scripture. If we are to pursue our goal of becoming more like Him, then you think we should all abandon all emotions and become stoics? So, Vulcans have it right after all!

Not all of these are emotions. Love isn't, for instance. Love can produce emotions, but it is not itself an emotion. Joy for us is an emotion. I just think God has a knowledge of what it means to be God and it means that He always has joy, though not in a sense that can be changed or altered. It is not a motion for God.

Unfortunately, humans who lack empathy are usually considered sociopathic or in more extreme cases, psychopatic.

I actually have a good friend who is a psychopath and a devout Christian. He is a loving person even without feeling love. Note that this is for humans. Humans and God are not on the same level. We are meant to reflect Him. He does not reflect us.

Well, no...Unmoved Mover entails destiny. You were destined to commit that sin, therefore, it must have actually been God's will.

That does not follow. That God knows the future does not equate that He caused the future or likes for it to happen that way.

[QUOTE] I guess you agree that regardless of whether you believe it was the leading of the Spirit or not, my wife should have stopped and engaged. That would have been the will of God regardless of the leading element? [/QUOTE

Correct.

What joy? God doesn't have any emotions...

Explain how God's joy was not overcome by a Christian's suicide...it would seem self-evident that it was. There can be no joy in someone taking their own life.

Because a suicide cannot overcome the reality of God. God's own being is greater than anything else out there and someone defying that does not alter God one bit.

Well, obviously we disagree on who's hermeneutic is more consistent. We are made in God's image, if God doesn't have a physical body, then how are we the image of God?

The image is the idol that represents the deity. We represent God in that we were created to rule on His behalf.

Rather, I think the more consistent hermeneutic is to look to Jesus as our example of what God is like and who God truly is. We see in the Gospels (particularly John) and in the writings of Paul that Jesus is God, and is the image of God. Furthermore, Jesus teaches God is a relational God, not an impassible one. Jesus himself had compassion and empathy for those in need. He was moved to act by the suffering of individuals. Jesus was moved to act by the pleas and cries of the downtrodden, and forsaken. Jesus says that he feels the pain of others in Matt. 25:41-45. We also have The Sermon on the Mount for example. Jesus says we become more like God when we show empathy, mercy, compassion, return good for evil. If we are "conformed to the image of the Son" (Rm 8:9) then do we not express positive emotions and compassion? I submit we imitate the passible and emotion God of the Bible. When Christ dies on the cross, God did not suffer? The sky was black and the earthquake happened and veil was rent....because God was unmoved by Christ's death?

Nope. God did not suffer. That was known as patripassianism in the early church. Jesus was moved, but Jesus was also human. The humanity of Jesus makes a difference to Him. If God was a man, He would live like Jesus, but Scripture tells us repeatedly that God is not a man.

So...you believe God ordains everything that happens (since He knows all that is going to happen and doesn't stop it) so that He can make good come from it? For what end?

Nope. I do believe though that God knows all things and does everything right. Everything that happens is allowed by God. If we were Him, we would do the exact same things because He acts from all wisdom and knowledge.

ISTM that the parents of a child who is kidnapped, raped and tortured to death, would wonder what kind of monster God would have to be in order to let that happen. I don't see how people can be comforted by knowing God knew evil things were going to happen to you and let's them happen, and feels no sadness for you, or righteous anger on your behalf it. It just makes little sense.

We all have to accept it. A parent can think God is a monster, but why? Did God do something wrong? Did God owe to do something to stop any sort of evil whatsoever? God could let all of us just keel over and die and it would not be wrong for Him. He owes us nothing. God could have never sent Jesus if He didn't want to. He doesn't owe us Jesus.

Meanwhile, I don't find comfort in a God who doesn't know the future and doesn't have His hand over it.

You sure seem to love your Reducio ad Absurdum...Why do you need to ascribe all these things to God, who is angry at Israel, and ready to destroy it? The text shows that Moses was able to change God's mind...despite God's justifiable anger.

Which would also mean by your system not that Moses knew a future God didn't, but Moses was able to think of an outcome God wasn't. Exactly how ignorant is the God of open theism that a mere human can outthink Him?

Didn't God basically abandon his covenant? If not, why do we have a differentiation of Scripture of Old Testament (Covenant) and New Testament (covenant). Hebrews chapters 8 and 9 are replete with examples of old being done away with and the new established.

He didn't. He fulfilled it. The old covenant is the pointer to the new. That was the purpose of it.

That creative I'll give you that....but anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms are supposed to explain something about the subject, in this case God, how does this explain something about God? That's just silly AP. If God does not experience emotions, then He was never angry in the first place and was never going to destroy Israel. Also, how does Moses have any power? God's mind can't be changed, therefore, He really was never going to destroy Israel as he knew Moses would intervene. Was God lying to Moses?

Not at all. God was testing Moses. God was not lying to Abraham either when He told Abraham to sacrifice his only son. The language does explain something about God, but why? Because we as finite beings cannot understand God. We can only understand Him in ways that make sense to us. That's what this language does. God is revealed however as just and righteous both.

Did you mean to say "But if the open theist reading is right"? The argument doesn't work IMO. The basis of the theory dictates that all things that move...have to have a mover. I can move myself without help or even compunction. God doesn't have to move me necessarily. Furthermore, Unmoved mover has dualistic theology as a function of it. Are you a dualist?

Then I guess you didn't read what I said about the argument. You are moved insofar as you pursue the good as a final cause. The good is God, which means God's being in the world is what makes you move to some extent. Note also the motion is from potentiality to actuality. God moves things in being their final cause as well.

I don't think you've convinced me that I hold that. I find theologically and philosophically, Open Theism makes the most sense of Scripture. I submit, you are using the backdrop of Greek philosophy to underpin your theology. Greek thought was a long way from Hebrew thought. Greek thought that any change in God would result in a less than perfect being. Greek thought entailed the idea that flesh was bad and spirit was good (hence the dualism)...since emotions originated in the flesh, they were necessarily bad...therefore, impassibility became the standard for God. Therefore, I find classical theism to be Scripturally very weak, and philosophically corrupted.

I have not found the Greek thought to be wrong and as for Hebrew thought, I don't know of any Hebrews who held to any concept of open theism. It's a very latecomer to the show. If any one of the arguments for classical theism works, then open theism is really in trouble, and I have multiple such arguments. Meanwhile, I find open theism to be lacking theologically, Scripturally, and philosophically. Whatever is causing the change in the deity of open theism, that's the deity I would want to get to.

[37818]

The evangelist Francis Schaeffer described God as "Infinite and personal." God being invisible and omnipresent.

[Cerebrum123]

Putting this here since it seems to have been missed.

I really think that seeing joy as an emotion(or merely as such) is the wrong way to look at it, at least in a really meaningful sense. It's more than that, and something you have even when you have negative feelings such as sadness. It's a peace that helps overcome even the most troubling of sorrows. Even if it was an emotion you can be happy and sad at the same time. Same with other emotions. They don't negate each other, they coexist.

I also think that the arguments about certain characteristics of God being more or less superior are way too subjective*. God has to reveal Himself to us for us to really know Him. Without that we can only get a few basic attributes such as His power.

The more I read about Thomism, and of Thomas Aquinas own the more I reject it. I used to find some of it convincing, but not anymore.

I am not an open theist btw. I haven't seen good explanations of God's foreknowledge in the Bible by them yet. I'll admit I haven't done much research on the issue, just putting this part in the let people here know where I'm coming from.

*Muslims and Jews say it's beneath God to incarnate as a man, deists say it's beneath God to actually intervene in His creation etc.

If joy is an emotion for us, then it is an emotion for God.

Impassibility would seem to require God be completely static*. "Pure Act" would also necessitate the same, as God would always be "doing" the same things from all eternity. This would entail a deterministic** universe, as well as a "block universe". Such a universe would not actually have motion in it, either in the sense of movement, or in the sense of potentiality to act. All "motion" would be merely an illusion foisted upon us inside of time, but it wouldn't actually exist, as the past, present, and future would all be equally actual at the macro level. If there is no real motion, then the "Unmoved Mover" concept is false.

*I've seen some try to argue otherwise, but I've never seen a convincing argument for this.
**This would obviously entail that God is directly responsible for all of our sins, and we are mere puppets on a stage. Our choices aren't really choices.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Brum. Why is it that if something is X for us, it is for God as well? If thinking is a process of the brain for us, does that mean God has a body and a brain?

I do think God is doing all things from all time. How could it be otherwise, unless you want to say that God changes, something Scripture repeatedly says He does not do.