Comments on: Mill Avenue Resistance Reports: Saturday, December 20th 2008

By: Amerist

Amerist — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:12:48 +0000

Ah yes, I should have pointed out that this was Vince’s premise and not the entirety of the discussion. Unfortunately for me I cannot properly frame a lot of what he talks about because I don’t have the theological background that he does.

If nothing else readers will at least be able to infer more knowledge of where Vince is coming from in thy observational comment.

We didn’t give him the street name “Preacher Man” years ago for nothing. He’s definitely a raconteur and will go on at extreme length about any number of philosophical branches. I have therefore modified the post to make this a lot more clear.

Thanks Vocab. It’s always nice to have people who were actually involved to round out what I am trying to re-evoke here.

By: Kazz

Kazz — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:07:43 +0000

Many an atheist will laugh at this point and say, “It’s like listening to fanboys argue over Lord of the Rings – har, har.”, or “Why label it? Who cares? You’re all wrong!?”

It is tempting to look at it that way sometimes, but if you want to have a meaningful discussion on religious subjects then you have to at least make an attempt at understanding exactly what the other person believes, and it’s hard to find two people (even among Christians of the same denomination) who believe exactly the same things.

Thanks for clarifying who was taking which position in your discussion with Vince though. Having talked to both of you I already knew it would be Vince arguing for that side, but others reading this might have mistakenly attributed the “Open Theism” argument to you.

By: Vocab

Vocab — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:18:36 +0000

“The premise stretched on about how YHVH is flesh and his holy (where holy means something like complete, mature, finished…) And that YHVH has improved over the journey of the Bible, matured from the entity at the beginning of the Bible to later on.”

Just to be clear here, the aforementioned statement is solely Vince’s position; not that of Classic Christianity nor that of the author. Per His own self-disclosure, God the Father is absolutely NOT flesh-and-blood, nor was He ever a man, human, or physical being of any kind. On orthodox/biblical theology, YHWH is not improving or maturing in any way – nor has He. This false notion has been called “Open Theism”

Mainly I was trying to understand what Vince was getting at … he seemed to include bits of Mormonism/Gnosticism/non-Trinitarianism/Ultra-Pentecostalism and Eastern Mysticism into his own brand of “Vince” theology.

I’m not trying to “put him in a box” just trying to see what he was tring to articulate. Many an atheist will laugh at this point and say, “It’s like listening to fanboys argue over Lord of the Rings – har, har.”, or “Why label it? Who cares? You’re all wrong!?”

To which I say: it behooves us all to at least know or understand what it is we disagree with so we can not misrepresent the “other guys” – not that I think this blog did that but the average reader who was not there may be unclear about what exactly is the core Evangelical idea on this – hopefully no longer …