Anglican Prayer Beads  Prayer Beads  Anglican Rosary Rosaries  Natural Soap  Handmade Soap

Does this post imply that God is learning as God goes... just like us?

I'm not wanting to imply anything. I'm in process myself with this issue. I'm pointing to a film I saw. In the film, God seems to be growing and changing. This goes against much of what we think. However, I am aware that the theme is present in our oldest faith stories.

Make of it what you will.

very nicely done as a film - though I couldn't quite follow the color imagery changes that seemed to be on purpose. Espeically so since the color correction artist was specifically mentioned in the credits. I actually thought as I watched that this film needed a good color correction session to clean it up . . .

Noting also that the audio was recorded live on set with "no lip syncing" so I'm guessing it was recoreded acapella and then post scored - nice job.

As for the theology . . . "what? God can't change? He's God - of course He can" I can't recall if you mentioned it here on RLP or if I linked to it from another reference - but read "Blogging the Bible, What happens when an ignoramus reads the Good Book?" http://www.slate.com/id/2141050/

It's such a refreshing "rehash" of all the things we thought we knew about God and His nature . . . at least His nature as reflected in the Old Testement. His approach these days seems to be a somewhat different approach than what He was like in those days - or at least different from what our general understanding of what He was like then . . . anyway, read the blog. Especially if you grew up in Church and have heard all the old stories so many times that they run togethor :)

"I say for every human being to hear,
So none can claim that something else was said:
If you decide your enemy to murder,
Let's get this straight: I did not give that order."

The problem, of course, is that God hasn't actually said this. Certainly not "for every human being to hear". Personally I think he should. But he hasn't.

Word, RLP. I've been studying medieval philosophy, which has brought me to realize how thoroughly our conceptions of God have been affected (or maybe: infected) by Greek philosophical ideas. I think it would be nice to see how the scriptural tapestry would look without all those neoplatonic strands in it. But they are so tightly interwoven - the infection runs so very deep.

-Toby
http://hittingbedrock.blogspot.com

Keith has a gift. And thank you for this one.
Theresa

Wow. That's wonderful. Thank you for helping make my viewing of it possible!

- Julia

The Omnis...

God not all-powerful or all-knowing? I can hardly imagine this, though I'm trying.

What's wrong with the theology that I've been taught for years? The answers seem to work. But I know better than to think that RLP and many of you others out there haven't thoroughly considered problems of the "omnis".

"Although God does not cause evil and suffering, he may allow such things to happen." "The Lord gives and takes away." "The evil and suffering is often in some way, sometihng we created for ourselves."

Oh, and I also have a problem thinking that we're all innocent. Everybody thinks that if they never murdered or stolen (much?), then they're pretty decent/innocent people. Surely, our inability to be "pretty decent people" by Gods standard is throughout all the Scriptures?

Has anyone taken a look at Cries of the Heart by Ravi Zacharias? Much of this is addressed in the chapter on the book of Job.

Where is the link? I don't see it.

Darn, I tried including a link that would make that make sense:

http://zarq.livejournal.com/580887.html

- Julia

Anonymous who is looking for the link,

Click on the picture itself.

- Julia

Golly ned, RLP, I spent almost a year arm wrestling with the "omni" issues. I employed Clifford Pickover who uses some very radical logic exercises, that I found helpful. And now here you go and blow it all up with it not even being an issue. Now I wish I was "omni" myself and could've saved a year of brain gymnastics.

Loved the video. Linky, linky to quoth yourself. Not on my blog, but to my pastors.

And it's obvious to me that God repents. If He didn't, we wouldn't have Jesus.

Keith,
I read the director's notes and I am gonna respond here because I know you will read every comment. It is so sad when you get the first reaction to your baby and the guy says...
"Wow, now that's a profane baby. Humpf." Stalks off in a huff.
And you and I, and apparently a whole bunch of film festies, not to mention the esteemed RLP, know it is a supersuperb baby. I get it. Omni, smomni, I know God cannot be happy with all the blowing to bits of his people. You just feel something like that. Righteous God? You betcha.
As for Jacob's comment about God not saying this yet for everyone to hear, even though Jacob and I both wish he would. Well...know the old joke about the guy on the desert island who rejects several perfectly good rescues because he was waiting for some miracle from God himself, a giant God hand, maybe, to magic carpet him back to San Diego? And God, of course, being really smart, says,"I sent you a plane and a boat, whaddaya want?"

God gave us mouths and voices (nice one, Larry) and he sprinkled us around and made someone think up "a Digidesign MBox that Pro Tools needs to see on the USB port or it won't start up" and lyrics and stuff, even color changes, and when God asks why we didn't pay attention to the fact that God really does not, no how, want us shivving or RPGing each other, don't say he didn't send us Larry and Keith and Credo. Great job, guys.
OldPoet

I know I must sound out of sync with this, but in simple terms, could someone explain the omnis and Greek outlook of God to me? I read about God learning from things as we learn, but somehow, it is hard for me to understand it.

How did the omnipotent idea develop? For something so popular in mainstream christianity, it must have SOME sort of biblical basis. I dont understand...

One of the many things I have struggled with is how can man truly believe he/she can explain an infinite being such as GOD we have finite minds. From my experience, GOD makes himself known to man not the other way around if it were then all it is man-made thoughts and man-made ideas. Maybe this guy is right that GOD isn't all knowing or present but is this his own thoughts? To me, when looking at pieces on/of GOD one needs to ask that question.

becky

Greek influence on Chrisianity...There is an article on Wikipedia (read with caution, as with all wikis). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_of_Hellenic_philosophy_on_Christianity
Maybe the article will lead you to other writers. Tony Campolo's article that Gordon linked to referred to Rabbi Harold Kushner's "When Bad Things Happen to Good People". I imagine it is in most libraries.

Damn Prophetic.

Bill

I'm still hoping that someday, instead of trying to find a more accurate way to anthropomorphize God, we'll stop doing it at all.

Everyone, I'm too tired to get too much into this. Happy to mostly let the conversation go where it may. But a few comments.

1. The concept of omnipotence and omniscience are not Biblical. I don't think the Hebrew mind thought in those ways. Those kinds of philosophical extremes are more what philosophers do.

2. I think the ideas got popularized because a lot of Christian theology was DEEPLY influenced by neo-platonic thinkers early in our history. The Bible gives its best language to the description of God. I suppose the omni stuff is our Western attempt to do that as well.

3. Anselm said that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Nice idea I suppose, but it's just an idea. It was a part of one of his proofs. (Not a very good one) But his words have affected us more than we know.

4. For my part, I place my emphasis on serving the Creator of the universe by participating in an ancient spiritual tradition of adoration and service. Whether God knows everything or has limitations is not that important to me. I personally conceive of God as a great being, perhaps an intelligence beyond bodies like ours. But that being has limits of knowledge and power. Those limits are so beyond me that they might as well be infinite. So when I hear infinite ideas describing God, I allow them to be language of honor and worship.

Am I the only one who thought: "Meh"? People can debate the omni stuff all they want, and it doesn't bother me. But I thought it was pretty weak *as a (short) film*. The guy has a good voice, the cinematography looked fine to this amateur's eye, but anybody can write 9 minutes of Andrew Lloyd Webber-level music, and (more importantly) it's basically a sermon--a lecture-style presentation of a series of ideas about God, delivered by a guy in a shirt and tie. In church. Except he's pretending he's God, and he's singing. Big deal.

On the origins of the omni stuff in Greek philosophy:

Ancient Greek cosmology (mostly in its Neoplatonic version) came up with a few ideas, which were sometimes kept distinct, but all received the label of "God" at some point or another.

The idea of omnipotence can probably be traced to the idea of the First Mover. This makes little sense to the modern mind, but the idea is that the First Mover is, at every moment, responsible for everything. Nothing happens that is not ipso facto an act of the First Mover. Anything that can possibly happen is a possible act of the First Mover: the First Mover can do anything. This had to be modified to make room for free will, but the basic idea stuck.

The idea of omniscience comes from the concept of the Intellect. This postulated entity continuously thinks and knows all things - it is, in fact, Knowledge (Knowing, Thinking) itself.

Notions that God is simple, and that God exists outside of time, are likewise rooted in this philosophical tradition. (Not that I know what those notions are supposed to mean.)

Now, it could be that all of these ideas about God are right, or at least not completely wrong, depending on how you interpret them. But if you take them too seriously, then you've turned them into claims which lack basis in scripture, and will probably lead to unnecessary logical knots. (Not that giving up the omnis will eliminate all logical knots. You can still generate a version of the Problem of Evil without the omnis. Or how about that whole God becoming a man thing - now there's a theological puzzle for you.)

-Toby
http://hittingbedrock.blogspot.com

As OldPoet guessed, I've been reading the comments--which I love. All of them, not just the positive ones. Short films just don't get this kind of attention. Like, ever.

I've stayed quiet because I've found that the author's presence kills the conversation. If you're there from the beginning, all you hear is praise. Everybody with anything negative to say stays politely quiet, which is the worst reaction an artist can possibly get.

I figured by Sunday morning, it would be about time to pipe up.

One of the most exciting things about RLP linking to CREDO is that it didn't get into a single religious film festival. It's enjoyed a very successful film festival run, and won several awards, but it's bothered me that festivals organized around religious themes either rejected it or disqualified it up front because of profanity. The closest we got was the Ethics of Entertainment festival in Arizona. So the thought of reaching an audience specifically interested in these kinds of issues is very exciting, whether you enjoy the film or not.

The other thing that's bothered me is that I didn't think of putting Middle-Eastern violin in the soundtrack until after the film was done. But that's got nothing to do with anything you guys said.

Anyway, I'd like to continue the conversation. I hope I'm not the only one.

First off, thank you to RLP for the link, and thank you to you all for being interested, and for watching it.

Second, to those (Theresa, Julia, Bill) who expressed their enjoyment, another thank-you! It's very rare that artists get to hear this, and it's extremely gratifying.

Taking the more questioning comments in order of their posting, and leaving alone the "omni" discussion, since I'm not qualified:

Billb:

Thanks! Yes, the scoring was all done in post. Larry sang without accompaniment on the set. If you're interested in the technique, it was the subject of a couple of articles in RECORDING magazine. There's a link to them at that same CREDO/RLP page.

The color correction you felt it needed is probably more a budget issue. First, we couldn't afford more lights on the set, so sometimes there's no rimlight. We had a very small budget ($1100), and additional lights and the additional person needed to run them on our very tight schedule (we had one day at the church) would have cost $300. We didn't have the money, and the color correction person can only work with what's on tape. So it's no poor reflection at all on that person. As one of the RECORDING articles says, the choice in short films isn't between doing it right or doing it wrong; it's between doing it less-than-optimally or not doing it at all. We opted not to sit around, wishing we could make a technically perfect film.

Jacob:

I agree that it's a problem God hasn't said that. If he had, we would have made some other film! *g*

OldPoet:

Thank you! I've re-read your comment a few times because it's so nice to hear. But as egomania-confirming as it would be to accept that Larry and I were sent by God (and it's not as though I didn't enjoy the thought), I really believe all we did was express a set of thoughts and feelings. Whether those thoughts and feelings were put there by God, I don't know. By nature, I sort of doubt it, and I tend not to think in those terms. It just felt like something we could express with conviction. But when it comes to things like God, what the hell do I know?

Jacob:

If he has since repented, you'd expect him to proclaim his new position at least as loudly and clearly. If he had done this the film would not be necessary.

Sure. But no one (least of all me) has claimed that this film was necessary, at least not in a theological sense. It was necessary for me, both because it was something I felt I could say with conviction, and because the feature-length musical I thought was on its way into production stalled out, and I became extremely frustrated with time passing and nothing happening. "Can we please DO something!?" was as much a motivation for the end result as the message itself.

then I think the film functions as more of an accusation against God (Why hasn't he repented and corrected his errors?) than as a viable theology

We also haven't claimed it's a viable theology. It's a short film, not a doctoral thesis, so it doesn't take any position on the nature of God, except that without making at least a few conscious assumptions, I can't write the character. (Can't write what you don't understand.)

Hopefully, we used our talents and skills to express something that resonates with people. As the writer, I care that the God I write makes sense within the universe of this little story, and recursively reinforces my conscious and unconscious feeling for the piece as I write it. All I want is to get it right--which doesn't mean rigorous adherence to any particular system of thought, but rather expressing what seems right in a coherent, affecting way, using all the talents and skills I can bring to bear. That's it. That's the entire job description.

No accusation against God was intended, but I'm not arrogant enough to claim your interpretation is wrong and mine's right, even if I'm the writer. Sufficiently complex, organic art supports multiple valid interpretations, the same as people do. A character every viewer or reader perceives identically isn't a very lifelike character; it's Snidely Whiplash.

Anonymous:

No attempt to more accurately anthropomorphize God was intended, but it's a valid interpretation, and an interesting one. The problem is, I can't make a short film for $1100 and my available resources, with this message, about a non-anthropomorphized God. And honestly, I'm not sure I'd want to. One of the things the film is about is people's conception of God. Like all fiction, it doesn't say "Here's fact." It says "What if?"

It also made sense to both of us that God would sing.

Kurt:

I love that you felt free to say it left you cold. Sorry you didn't like it, but one thing I've learned is that no matter what you do, somebody's going to call you names. (And "Andrew Lloyd Webber" is a pretty bad one.) Which is a good argument for doing the art you feel is true, and ignoring what you think everybody will like. Because there's no such thing.

Now that I'm a person to you, and not just an abstraction behind a video behind a web page, please don't feel bad. You expressed an honest reaction.

Did any of this make any sense to anybody? A work of art from the inside sometimes bears little resemblance to its outside, on top of which, people bring their own agendas and preconceptions to it in doses that are sometimes hard for the artist to understand. But the interplay of thoughts when the artist actually gets to talk to the audience is kind of thrilling.

So did I just encourage more discussion, or discourage it?

Dear Gordon,
Your newest article, as well as other things you have written, have lead me to write this.

I agree with you completley about the omiscience and omipotents of God.

But I wonder if sometimes you take the theologically "liberal" position on some issues purley as a reactionary stance.
Please dont think that I am calling into question your intellectual integrity, I do the same thing as well. I was raised in a backdrop of extreme fundementalism and I have always tended to lean left as a reaction against that.

Of course part of me finds a deep intellectual and spiritual satisfaction in liberalism, but I know also that sometimes I just cant bring myself to be orthodox not because I know they are wrong, but because of my expieriences with fundementalism.

I think I see the same thing in you. I guess I wrote this because I feel a connection to yoiu in that way, and it bugs me that I'm like that.
Or maybe I'm just wrong...

Well, although I can't really add any substantive comments to the premise of the piece, I will say that I visited the RLP site several times, and was totally reluctant to even watch the video. RLP does, sometimes, get a bit loose with theology, and I wasn't really in a mood to internally debate the O & O concepts (all of which I've been taught my entire Christian life).

But this morning, I decided to give it a whirl, and actually loved it. Then I went back and read the Tony Campolo article, and liked it too. So, it's more information to research, and digest, and talk over with people who talk about those sorts of things. Food for thought; time to chew I suppose.

Now, having said all that, I thought the video was damn well done. Loved Larry. Loved the situation of God singing his thought alone in a dimly lit church. I thought the lyrics and music were great...but then, I actually LIKE Andew Lloyd Webber's music. So what do I know.

Anyone else bothered by the spoken interlude about omniscience? God explains that anything which hasn't happened yet isn't a thing--it doesn't exist; it's a non-thing--and so it can't be known.

Doesn't that reasoning prove way too much? Neither God nor we can know *anything* about the future. Can't know that the sun will rise in another 6 hours, can't even have a reasonable degree of confidence about it, because there's no "it" to have confidence about.

(Trying now to engage the film on its own terms, instead of snark.)

"Before Abraham was born, I Am!" (John 8:58)

God has the power to do anything; isn't that the definition of omnipotence?

"Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'" (Matt. 19:26)

As for omniscience, who wants to worship a God Who can't see around the next corner any better than I myself can? Fortunately, my God isn't as limited as yours:

"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." (Isaiah 46:10)

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will..." (Ephesians 1:3-5)

"This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross." (Acts 2:23)

These few Scriptures are just a small sampling, as you all know. Although the words "omniscient" and "omnipresent" were never used in the Bible, their meaning is seen throughout. To strip God of these qualities is to strip Him of His divine glory. You would do well to heed the words of the Apostle Paul:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." (Romans 1:18-23)

I don't what I love more: the fact that Credo has made it to RLP or the conversation it has generated. Well, that statement is almost true. This "Credo" event has made my weekend. And a good part of my week.

The most conversation I've had after sharing "Credo" with friends is, "Wow." "Yeah, wow." "That's really cool, Larry." Thank you. "Is that your church?" or at festivals "Hey! It's God!" And this is Keith Snyder. "Love Credo. Love Credo." Thank you. "Loved it. So cool." Thanks very much. All of them very nice conversations, but in terms of substance, these RLP Comments were amazing. I've become the guy saying, "Wow. Cool! Yes! No! Whoa!" Thank you for taking enough interest in our work to watch and listen, quote it, think about it and express your opinions about it and the ideas it presents.

If you haven't explored the little site Keith put together for this link, you might want to. I found it fascinating. But of course, I would.

Thanks everybody. Thank you Gordon.

Larry Picard
"When life gives you short, bald and glasses, incorporate it."

Let me start by labeling myself: Conservative, Bible believing, Christian. What imagery does that evoke for you? If you are like most these days, hardly much worth talking nicely about. And I cannot say dear old Bush has done much to excel that label forward. He is like the girlfriend everyone hates but you keep dating anyway for reasons unknown. I digress. Would it surprise you to know that I am just as avid about RLP as the average liberal reader? What if I admitted to loving/watching/listening to edgy radio and television? Whether it is Howard Stern, the Daily Show, or the dreaded No Spin Zone, I tend to absorb information from multiple sources. I can watch the Simpson’s, Southpark, and Robot Chicken without bating an eye. Why? Because I consider the source and take value from another viewpoint...even finding common ground and hilarity in mutual experiences. I have never understood why anyone (much less those of the Christian variety) takes offense so easily. I personally knew of Keith before this post, so my thoughts about his film were hardly modified by its new exposure to RLP. The film is riveting, beautiful, thought provoking, funny, and a bit sad. All that on a shoestring budget and I must add another star to my rating of it! Do I believe Keith speaks the truth of God or His nature? Do I believe the O&O arguments are strengthened or weakened by the film? I have actual answers to those questions but who really cares? You have an artist expressing himself. I for one, appreciate that. Much in the same way I appreciate dear RLP!

The honest truth is that this discussion is never going to reach a concrete conclusion. God is not within the realm of complete human understanding, and Hallelujah for that!!! I try to take the Bible in as much as I possibly can, and form my own views. Right now, I'm hanging on to the doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ, and praying that the rest that I'm meant to understand will come with time.

If "He" isn't in the eschatology, it's just scatology.

I would like to say how grateful I am for this conversation... which appears to have run its course about 20 hours prior to my logging in and reading.

I have been reading much (elsewhere) on the struggles in the Anglican communion and the Presbyterian church. I have been reading posts in which people hurl really cruel insults at one another because of their positions on one issue or another. Then I come to RLP, and read a serious discussion on the nature of God, as revealed in scripture and as influenced by Greek philosophical thought. It is spring air in my spiritual lungs.

Many thanks to all of you.

Gordon, I'm currently filling in for your pal Taryn at CU as she takes a sabbatical. The students are still talking about your visit.

Peace,

Magdalene

http://magdalenesmusings.blogspot.com

Why is no one bringing up Molinism?

Jamie, I can answer this, but not easily. It would require some time and subtlety on my part.

Do you want to hear my thoughts and try to understand them, or do you just want to assert that I'm misguided and have me agree?

I admit my sense is the latter; but if I'm mistaken, I'll make the time. (Though not until after the childcare portion of the evening is over.)

Molinism: It's me again. I refer to Molinism, because I use to be a very narrow minded, die-hard, "Calvinist" (I am not saying Calvinists are narrow minded, but I was). I know... when someone brings up the term "Calvinist"/"Calvinism", they are trying to intellectualize God. Please do not throw me into that category, these struggle are not pleasant for me. I have struggled with fundamentalism/"Calvinism" most of my life because that's the way I was brought up to understand God. I think much of narrow minded fundamentalism has it's roots in Calvinism, whether or not narrow minded fundamentalists understand that (I recognize that there are exceptions). I often struggled with the contradiction of God having full control over free will, for obvious reasons. I conveniently ignored this contradiction, or as my Calvinistic side would say, "I allowed for this apparent contradiction". Considering God to be in control of man's freewill really gets sticky when looking at the kiss of Judas, as well as Moses on the mountain changing God's mind.

I really love the Bible, and like to believe that what it says specifically about God is true (like Jamie). Therefore my thoughts went something like this: God, even in his sovereignty, chose man to have a freewill, a will in which He could not alter. How he created a fee will machine, I haven't a clue. God, by choosing man to have a freewill has accepted the obvious consequences. Now, with this as the presupposition, God does all in his power, grace, knowledge, and love to ransom us back to him. Before the creation of the world he would be able to take into account our current free desires and respond to them, for had we not those desires, then there would be nothing for which God could respond, thus allowing for the the "changing" of God's mind (uh.. before the creation of the world). Our wills would then be considered, before the creation of the world, by the creator of the world (nice). God could be the God of the Bible, including the verses Jamie quoted, and still regret or repent/change his actions. I like this view as it has helped assuage my doubts in Christianity when confronted with pain, suffering, sin, evil. etc. I am in no way saying that this is the "end all be all". I just think it is a way in which freewill and sovereignty can be worked out. Some people cannot help but struggle in faith this way (me).

Basically the above is Molinism with the addition of "middle knowledge", where God knows the counter factuals (things that could happen if you or I were in a different environment, but these things need not happen). A good example of God having "middle knowledge" is: 1 Samuel 23:7-13. Therefore, God could consider all counterfactuals, and control everything, save freewill (which he chose) for his purpose.

You can can find much more on Molinism at William Lane Craig's site. Here is one article that I thought did a descent job at explaining Molinism: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/menmoved.html

Just remove everything after ".com" to get to his main site, if you like.

Man... reading over this, I'm so full of disclaimers.

Thanks, Jamie. I'm not sure when I'll have the half-hour it'll probably take, so for the moment, I'll just say:

It's not theology, I'm under no delusion that that's God (sorry, Larry), and I'm not out to convince anyone of of a single thing about God's nature.

I'll respond better when I can, hopefully later tonight.