Top-Down Theology

[Brightstar27]

Open Theism has nothing to do with God's omnipotence; it has to do with the nature of time. Driscoll misrepresented it.

[dyin2live83]

@Brightstar27 I have a lot of love and respect for what I've seen of this guys ministry but I do think some of his definitions in the earlier part of this short segment of teaching was inaccurate.

[TheThawek]

Just want to say I consider Pastor Mark Driscoll my pastor. He preaches only from the bible and not his thoughts. Most Pastor preach from their own ways. TK- All the way from Kansas.

[Richy15251]

I wonder if he actually believes the crap he spews from his mouth, or if he just enjoys the wads of cash.

[the13thof12]

@Richy15251 Are you happy? The reason I ask is because I wonder if ignorance truly is bliss.

[Richy15251]

@the13thof12 to quote Bernard Shaw, 'the fact that a religious man is happier than a skeptic, is no more to the point than a drunk man is happier than a sober one.'

Either way I consider myself to be very happy.

Statistically I wouldn't call an atheist 'ignorant' in the same way that. 90% of the national academy of science are atheist. Or how about Bertrand Russel, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Popper, David Hume, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Steven Jay Gould, Richard Feynman, Paul Dirac etc...

[the13thof12]

@Richy15251 I am afraid that you missed my point. I wasn't arguing for "religion" based on personal happiness. I wouldn't do that. I was simply pointing out your ignorance.

[Richy15251]

@the13thof12 you want to tell me why I'm ignorant? why your religion is right and every other one is wrong while they're all based on zero evidence?

[steffanielyn]

@Richy15251 hi richy, I hope that may you find it in your heart to look for answers in an open mind. People criticize religion thinking it is just defined as Christianity, Muslim, Buddism, Hinduism and the list goes on.. But little do they realize that Atheism is also a religion. You chose not to believe in anything, your religion is disbelief.

I know some Christians are really off in to criticizing others and I apologize on their behalf . But I hope that you seek for the truth. :)

[Richy15251]

@steffanielyn This is a common straw-man fallacy that christians love to employ; to claim that atheism is itself a religion.

Is not believing in leprechauns a religion? The answer is no, it is up to the one with the positive claim to provide evidence that that their assertion is valid. A claim provided without evidence can be disregarded with without evidence. I think we'd all agree that there are no fairies even though there is no evidence that there are in fact, no fairies.

[steffanielyn]

@Richy15251 @Richy15251 I respect your point of view. We all are different after all. But this is what I chose, and this is what I believe in. To express why I believe this would be a waste of time. One thing I learned in life, if you are having a conversation with others see what is their point of view or world view.

If they have taken a side, there is no point explaining further as everything that you will say will just be a dust. So at the end of the day, let's just agree to disagree.

[Redington931]

@Richy15251 It may not be a religion in and of itself but it certainly can help bolster people's religion in the self. Though, it's not atheism that is the sole enabler of that. It's basically any ideology that gets the person to feel justified in themselves by themselves; and who are you to question that, right? There has to be other motives involved than just having a philosophical debate because ultimately it deals with more than just beliefs.

[Richy15251]

@Redington931 I'm not quite sure what you mean by "people's religion in the self". I actually care what's true rather than accepting an idea for emotional reasons. I don't reject Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc... because I want to "believe in myself", I don't believe in them because there is no evidence for any of them aside from anecdotes and emotional testimony.

[Redington931]

@Richy15251 Ultimately people believe in doing whatever they feel/wish to do; despite saying they believe in things that may be selfless. It's inconsistent but it's no surprise when people's believes are confused.

[ltchydick]

Thats what she said

[adamshirey16]

That is not what Open Theism is.

[johnyjamie]

Great message. Thanks for posting.

[jonathonwwilliams]

Thanks Mark! A whole lot of insight all at once.

[chiodoce]

Yup. My "life" usually consists of being bored enough to go to videos I don't agree with, watch them all the way through, and then even go so far as to leave comments on them.

I don't have too many friends or anything better to do with my time, so I figure why not?

[Toledosteal]

I always start with belief that almighty Thor knows what is best and live my life accordingly.

[RAIDERJO76]

Hahahaha I always get a kick out of how you lame ignorant youtube atheists always say things like this and actually think that you're original and funny... ha.

[Toledosteal]

I just think it's so sad that you actually think you're right.

[RAIDERJO76]

Haha really, why's that? Are you suggesting that your worldview has any more of a logical or rational basis than mine does?

[thekingmaker10]

My favorite is how they (atheists) think that the universe just somehow "willed itself" into existence, and yet they think that WE are the ones whose beliefs are incredible.

[RAIDERJO76]

Haha no kidding. And it wouldn't be as bad if they weren't so arrogant.

[Toledosteal]

Belief in god is not a bad thing of itself but the particular god, out of the thousands to choose from, is one of the more petty and wretched conceptions of diety out there. I'm assuming you're christian of course.

[RAIDERJO76]

Toledosteal, why do you say that the Christian God is more "petty and wretched" than any other "god"? Please elaborate.

I would argue that the Christian worldivew is more consistent and rational than any other worldview.

[Toledosteal]

Of course you'd argue that because you've learned to ignore a god murdering the entire planet with a flood because he cocked up and took it out on the humans.

Nothing wrong or irrational with that at all.

[RAIDERJO76]

What are you talking about Toledosteal? This is one of the most confused and incoherent critisisms of Christianity I think I've ever heard.

[xTRUExHATEx]

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

[RAIDERJO76]

What your plagiarism of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" lacks is a sufficient basis for objective morality that is consistent with an atheistic worldview.

[xTRUExHATEx]

Who said that I have an atheistic world view?

I like the Jain Scriptures: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being."

Makes a lot more sense than such sage moral council as "You shall not covet your neighbor's donkey."

[RAIDERJO76]

I assumed that your were coming from an atheistic worldview due to your plagiarism of Dawkins.

You "like" that moral standard? Oh well that's great, but Hitler also "liked" the standard that said killing Jews is okay. I am not asking what you like. I am asking for an OBJECTIVE moral standard.

[xTRUExHATEx]

Moral standards should be based on the happiness and suffering of sentient beings; this is the objective standard. In other words, actions that increase suffering are immoral. Coveting your neighbor's donkey and homosexual acts are not immoral. Slavery and rape are immoral (despite what the Bible says).

[RAIDERJO76]

Haha really, the Bible teaches that rape isn't immoral? Hmm well I haven't found that yet, perhaps you could enlighten me by showing me where exactly it teaches this? As for slavery, although it didn't prohibit the type of slavery that occurred during the time, the Bible never endorses slavery either.

Regarding your standard on morality, do you not realize how completely arbitrary and subjective your standard is? Who are you to say that your standard is right? And why should morality be based

[RAIDERJO76]

on what causes less harm? Again, this is COMPLETELY arbitrary.

Further, even if we accepted your standard, would it then be okay to cause a minority to suffer for the greater happiness of mankind? Why or why not? Again, you may have your little subjective arbitrary "moral standard," but you have absolutely no OBJECTIVE basis for this standard, and THAT is the problem with your worldview.

[xTRUExHATEx]

My standard is not at all arbitrary and I explained it simply and completely. It is absolutely objective.

As for where the Bible endorses rape, check out Numbers 31:18. In fact, check out that whole chapter - you get an endorsement of genocide as well. Check out Deuteronomy 22:28, where the "punishment" for rape is to marry your victim (who is compelled by God to marry her assailant). Is this a good example of "objective morality"? Do you defend not prohibiting slavery? Really?

[RAIDERJO76]

Scripture neither endorses nor prohibits the type of slavery that when on during the time. So my point remains, to claim that the Bible says slavery isn't immoral is simply dishonest, since the Bible says nothing about whether or not the kind of slavery practiced at the time was morally good or bad.

As for Numbers 31:18, you are simply lying; it says nothing about rape: "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves." (cont.)

[RAIDERJO76]

But then again, do to your worldview, you don't have a problem with lying do you?? In regards to the rest of Numbers 31, it is simply dishonest to say that this is a general endorsement of genocide; on the contrary, God is giving a SPECIFIC order to the Israelites to wipe out the Midianite people. Again, this is NOT in any way shape or form a general endorsement of genocide.

Regarding Deuteronomy 22, at this point an actual understanding of the background of the text rather than seizing

[RAIDERJO76]

the arguments of druggies on the internet may be helpful. The reason that the man is commanded to marry the girl is because doing so will provide the girl with future provision and security. In that time and culture, having the man marry the girl would have been exactly what the girl and her father would want.

In regards to your morality, you have only offered me your standard of morality; you have NOT yet provided me with the objective BASIS for that standard. Your standard says that that

[RAIDERJO76]

which promotes happiness is good, while that which promotes suffering is bad. However you have yet to say WHY your standard says this. Why should morality be based on what causes the greater amount of happiness rather than what causes the greater amount of pizza? Again, your standard is TOTALLY arbitrary.

And you've still yet to answer my other question: exactly WHOSE happiness are we talking about here?

[doodlewatson]

About the abomination of a rape victim wanting to marry her rapist. It goes without saying that modern culture would find this abhorrently immoral. Your answer to this is basically 'yes, but this was a different time'. I'm not sure you see the irony here, so I'll spell it out. Your argument is based on a supposed objective morality through the God of the Bible. When confronted with the immoralities of the Bible, your answer is it's ok because morality is subjective and has changed with time.

[xTRUExHATEx]

"... 'As for Numbers 31:18, you are simply lying; it says nothing about rape: "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.'"

For what possible purpose would a bunch of grown men spare "FOR THEMSELVES" a bunch of little girls???

Does it bother you at all that your good book of morality addresses animal husbandry, graven images and hundreds of other equally stupid subjects whilst remaining silent on the easiest and most serious moral question of all time?

[doodlewatson]

I should know better, but I have to jump in on this. Raider, you are so wrong it hurts. Let's start with the slavery issue in this comment. A quick glance in Lev. and I fell upon 25:44: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." That's only an endorsement of slavery if you believe Moses - or God. Actually reading the text helps.

[thekingmaker10]

Well, believers can be arrogant too, unfortunately.

But you are definitely right, in that arrogance tends to be more prevalent among non-believers. I think there are a couple of reasons for this. For one, it is a sign of insecurity. They feel that if they are condescending, it will compensate for their lack of legitimate argument. Also, many times, non-believers are bitter about proclivities (often sexual in nature) they personally have, which are forbidden under a particular faith tradition.

[FlavourWave]

All I can say is "lol"