I don’t know if I would take the class again.
I learned some things and I was challenged by many things. There were times when it was very exciting and times when I wanted to die. Part of me wonders if this isn’t just going to be the very nature of philosophy; the other part wonders if it isn’t something else. Only time will tell.
Continue reading
I asked for questions the other night. I had a couple humorous replies. I laughed. But this is what was actually asked and (paraphrased) what was answered.
Is the purpose of all of this God business strictly to get to heaven? Most churches will use this language when preaching the gospel, this reasoning for having faith.
Continue reading
Tonight I looked at my friends, the ones who came with me, and we all said the same thing. We didn’t even have to speak it. We are simply euphoric.
Bell was giving us gold tonight. Pure gold.
Oh, and I have 25 pages of notes. 25.
Bell opened his 9:00 session briskly – I think this is the best way to describe it – efficiently saying “open your Bibles to Colossians 2.” He’s very direct and challenging – I love it. Oh, and Bibles are handed out while scripture verses are referred to on the screens (see right) and it’s up to you to turn to the verse. It’s awesome – don’t go to Mars Hill if you want to be lazy.
Continue reading
Tonight I sit on a hotel room couch in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Two friends are in the room nearby – one likewise on his laptop, the other one crashed in bed already. I can’t really blame him though, it has been a great day already – one full of lots of driving in the snow (yuck) and free-dinner-eating (yum).
Continue reading
There are a few other things on my mind that I would like to get out for a couple of reasons. First, I want to write all of my “God and Time” thoughts out before the end of the class and the final on Wednesday. Second, a number of interesting things were really synthesized in my mind earlier when I wrote an admittedly weak paper for class. But I suppose that’s what happens when you run so low on sleep your brain can’t act creatively anymore.
I would like to talk about omniscience (also the topic of my paper for class). The easiest way of jumping into the issue is to give the quote that had me thinking this direction as soon as I read it.
…There is no known univocal answer to what is essential for us being human…”
The quote comes from Thomas Senor in his essay “Incarnation, Timelessness, and Leibniz’s Law Problems”. He really struck me with this one. I immediate wrote in the margin: “If that is the case then why do we assume we know what it takes to be divine?” The emphasis in that sentence was on the why – which is an interesting topic – but I want to focus more on the what and the how.
The most exciting part of talking about God in relation to time (or any other thing for that matter) is when scripture or practical situations are taken into account. Today we read an essay today called “Incarnation, Timeless, and Leibnez’s Law Problems” by Thomas Senor. I found it very interesting – for the practical reason I already mentioned – as well as the fact that Senor lines up with many of my own beliefs; at the very least he hints at the fact.
What I would like to pay most attention to are the parts of his essay where he referenced and discussed the incarnation (that is, Christ becoming man on earth) and how we are to deal with this issue when considering the nature of time and (especially) omniscience.
We pray to God. Some of us do. Some of us could be much better than we are (speaking mainly to myself here). We also pray for a reason. Whatever the reason is, we base our prayers on the assumption that it is worth our time to pray. The point is we pray because we believe it makes a difference.
As the discussion in God and Time today showed, not all views of time really allow for any sort of meaningful prayer – at least not the way many of us think about it.
An illustration from my philosophy professor yesterday had me really excited (although it may have just been the 30 ounces of coffee in my system at the time. Don’t ask.)
Background: we have been reading a variety of essays this week by philosophical theologians arguing for an atemporal God. There have been different ways of going about it, but the basic illustration stays the same. Think of time as a line (a timeline) on which events in our time take place. Then there is God, removed from time, and (depending on the particular philosopher) still able to act in and on our timeline. But God cannot be seen as having his own seperate timeline – God does not experience time.
Ryan Imel's blog 