"...the God whom the Bible talks about, and whom Jesus Christ incarnates, is a God of love, and this entails that He is a God of freedom, for you cannot have love without freedom. ... ultimately, all evil in the world comes from free wills other than God. What God wills and does is always good. Whatever is not good has its origin from someone or something other than God."
- Dr. Gregory A. Boyd; Edward K. Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic
A colleague lent me this book because I have been asking him questions of Christianity. This act, unbeknownst to him, really arose from having nothing to do at work and consequently performing miscellaneous googling and reading. And it is really the historicity of the bible that I'm interested in, so that's a much less spiritual than intellectual perspective from the very beginning. I'd like to study the bible, but am not ready to build trustful relationships with no one. I have my hands full with mum alone.
I'm glad that reading the first exchange in the book did not cause the usuall automatic aversion I feel towards any direct address of God as if he exists. Maybe it's due to subconsciously changing attitude out of politeness for other people who took trouble to lend you books. If you really want to think of him (God, not colleague) as a warm, benign grandpa who will not laugh at your problems, he can be quite endearing. BL has said that a way to treat God is to be his pet. That is understandable to me now, but pets need to be with their masters or they grow violent. The lack of physical contact is compensated by earthly means and concepts: people, gatherings, care, imagination (? or fantasy??) etc. I can't reconcile spiritual and earthly existence still. I think one day I will go be a nun. And that's not even Christian.
(I get slightly jealous in a scared sort of way when someone is referred as a "very spiritual person". It shows my desire to be out of this world. But on second examination it's really a desire to be "above" this world because I'm after all examining and learning as though hunger-struck all notions and significances of this world. It's power struggle for knowledge, with unknown people for no clear purpose except to satiate arrogance, or esteem of self in the guise of arrogance.)
Back to the quote. New idea (to me) here is that one cannot love without free will. If we act completely according to others' plans, then it's others who are responsible for the evil or good that we do. It is not so, therefore evil-doers take responsibility for the evils they do; God doesn't. Do we take "responsibility" for the love and good deeds we effect? Not that either. God takes the credit, for he willed it. He only wills good; and so all good is willed by him. Is there only will or is it followed by choice? Which is more important? Since we can't love without free will, then choice seems to be the deciding factor. God's will AND free will. And on top of that I guess God gave the free will. And so? All logic and philosophy still.
Going to lab now to take spectra of a failed reaction mixture to see if the failure had been complete.
- Dr. Gregory A. Boyd; Edward K. Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic
A colleague lent me this book because I have been asking him questions of Christianity. This act, unbeknownst to him, really arose from having nothing to do at work and consequently performing miscellaneous googling and reading. And it is really the historicity of the bible that I'm interested in, so that's a much less spiritual than intellectual perspective from the very beginning. I'd like to study the bible, but am not ready to build trustful relationships with no one. I have my hands full with mum alone.
I'm glad that reading the first exchange in the book did not cause the usuall automatic aversion I feel towards any direct address of God as if he exists. Maybe it's due to subconsciously changing attitude out of politeness for other people who took trouble to lend you books. If you really want to think of him (God, not colleague) as a warm, benign grandpa who will not laugh at your problems, he can be quite endearing. BL has said that a way to treat God is to be his pet. That is understandable to me now, but pets need to be with their masters or they grow violent. The lack of physical contact is compensated by earthly means and concepts: people, gatherings, care, imagination (? or fantasy??) etc. I can't reconcile spiritual and earthly existence still. I think one day I will go be a nun. And that's not even Christian.
(I get slightly jealous in a scared sort of way when someone is referred as a "very spiritual person". It shows my desire to be out of this world. But on second examination it's really a desire to be "above" this world because I'm after all examining and learning as though hunger-struck all notions and significances of this world. It's power struggle for knowledge, with unknown people for no clear purpose except to satiate arrogance, or esteem of self in the guise of arrogance.)
Back to the quote. New idea (to me) here is that one cannot love without free will. If we act completely according to others' plans, then it's others who are responsible for the evil or good that we do. It is not so, therefore evil-doers take responsibility for the evils they do; God doesn't. Do we take "responsibility" for the love and good deeds we effect? Not that either. God takes the credit, for he willed it. He only wills good; and so all good is willed by him. Is there only will or is it followed by choice? Which is more important? Since we can't love without free will, then choice seems to be the deciding factor. God's will AND free will. And on top of that I guess God gave the free will. And so? All logic and philosophy still.
Going to lab now to take spectra of a failed reaction mixture to see if the failure had been complete.
posted by Azzurra | 3:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home