Amipotence Unveiled: Good Friday Conversations on Love and Control

TJ Blackwell: 00:00:38

First Peter 2:21 25 say, for you were called to this because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps. He did not commit sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When he was insulted, he did not insult in return.

When he suffered, he did not threaten, but entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. He Himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that having died to sins, we might live for righteousness.

By his wounds you have been healed, for you were like sheep going astray, but you have now returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls. In this pricopy the author is describing the response we should have to Jesus's sacrificial love. Dr.

Ord, for this Good Friday, what do you think Jesus sacrifice truly accomplished? And how should we look to this event as an example, in your opinion?

Tom Oord: 00:01:39

I think Jesus was killed by the Empire. I think Jesus could have used violence to try to resist the Empire.

He may or may not have succeeded, but he chose not to use violence and ended up dying because of decisions made by those in power. In the time of Trump. We have something to learn from Jesus. We should resist Empire, but do it non violently.

Joshua Noel: 00:02:10

Hey everybody, welcome to the Whole Church Podcast special bonus episode. We're excited to do for you guys part of an ongoing, I guess trilogy on the Amazon Podcast Network.

You know, starting this off was way back when originally, really, truly, we're like the origins. Dr. Thomas J. Ord wrote a book, the Death of Omnipotence in the Birth of Amnipotence. I think that's correct.

And then recently there was a two volume set that he orchestrated of critiques and criticisms and expansions and support for his idea of omnipotence. And then we did a panel of that on the Whole Church podcast. I think that was back in February. That was with Thomas J.

Ord, Josh Patterson, myself and Aaron Simmons. From that did I mention Nick Polk? Nick Polk.

And from that I realized Nick, who's part of the book, was talking about like pop culture references and how we see that the culture also doesn't really like this idea of omnipotence. And I was like, wait, why? Why didn't we talk about Mr. Purple in that?

So then we did a whole research project, me, Nick Polk, and then Pastor Will Rose, friend of the show.

Also one of the other hosts on Systematic Ecology read the omnibus of the Alias comics, Alias Jessica Jones, as well as rewatch the Netflix season one of the same show, Jessica Jones. And we kind of Reviewed it, thinking about it through the lens of this idea of omnipotence, controlling power, coercive love, and omnipotence.

And now to close off the podcast trilogy. So we did the first one on the whole church podcast. We did the second one on systematic ecology. Now we're back on the whole church podcast, and Dr.

Thomas J. Ord and Josh Patterson are going to tell me how terrible the podcast on systematic ecology was and how we all are going to go to hell.

But hell doesn't exist, so that doesn't make sense. So then we're going to have to, like, explain that paradox and, like, a whole separate trilogy. But that's what we're here to do today.

I'm excited to have Josh Patterson and Thomas J. Ord back with us today to continue this conversation. Guys, thank you so much for joining me in my convoluted nonsense.

Tom Oord: 00:04:22

Thanks for the opportunity.

Joshua Noel: 00:04:23

Yeah, yeah. I'm always excited to talk theology. And when we can get nerdy with the two, it's a. It's a fun time.

And the reason this one's back over here is mostly because I'm hoping this can kind of show us where maybe we have some disagreements here and there and we're not.

Or tweaks on the same idea, maybe, but we could still work together in unity for those who are truly in Christ, which I think means in love, which is very close to a lot of what Dr. Ord, I think is getting at in all this idea. So that's what we're going to be unpacking.

The only one of us who has not listened to that podcast is TJ Tiberious Mom Blackwell. And that's because he already knows all things, so he doesn't need to listen to podcast. Yeah, yeah.

TJ Blackwell: 00:05:01

I just don't really like podcasts.

Joshua Noel: 00:05:03

Yeah, yeah. But it's because he created them, so he's already over, you know. Yeah. So welcome to your show. Welcome to your podcast that you love to not listen to.

TJ Blackwell: 00:05:12

Thank you. Thank you. If you don't agree with me and you actually quite like podcasts, you should check out the other ones on the Onazow Podcast Network website.

Link is below to check that out. And then if you feel like supporting us when I won't do it, you know, other than monetarily, because I do do that, but you can, like, subscribe.

It's super helpful. It's the easiest thing in the world. Helps us a lot.

Joshua Noel: 00:05:37

Also, you lost. You said doo doo.

TJ Blackwell: 00:05:40

I did, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Joshua Noel: 00:05:43

Finally, guys, before we get to the meat of this. You guys know I always like to start with silly question. And I thought about skipping it because this is just a. This is a bonus.

But then I thought of a great one. Since this is going to be releasing on Good Friday, I was like, I know what we'll do.

Especially if I have Josh Patterson, we'll get as heretical as I think we can. That's what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna be completely irreverent. We're gonna get heretical here. And you know what?

In fact, instead of actually, you know what, I am gonna answer first, and then I'm gonna make the other Josh answer, because, you know, Josh is. That's our expertise. Is heresy. So we'll start with us, and then TJ and Tom. What? The two TJ. So the two Joshes, then the two TJ's. Yeah.

In today's silly question, heresy attached. Happy Good Friday.

You know, Jesus on the cross, he had a really cool catchphrase, you know, that someone pulled a drawstring and he said, forgive them. They know not what they do.

And I want to know, if you were to pick from any other movie, show, book, whatever, what is the worst catchphrase Jesus could have said on the cross? I'm gonna go first from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I think it would have been great if Jesus was hanging on the cross.

He would have looked up to the crowd and said, so long and thanks for all the fish. I think that would have been great. So, Josh, give me some heretical silliness.

Josh Patterson: 00:07:01

Oh, my goodness, man. This is one that I feel like I needed time to think about. No, it's good. I'm trying to pull from places that I enjoy or that I quote often.

Thing that Jesus did say on the cross is not super great. I don't know.

Joshua Noel: 00:07:18

I'm sorry. I did spring this on everybody.

Josh Patterson: 00:07:21

It's all good. Yeah. Can I. Can I have, like, maybe. I feel like tj, in his infinite wisdom, probably already has an answer. Can I be returned to, please?

Joshua Noel: 00:07:31

Oh, absolutely.

Josh Patterson: 00:07:32

Give me a second.

Joshua Noel: 00:07:33

I'll throw out a second one.

TJ Blackwell: 00:07:37

There's so many catchphrases, and it's. It's hard to think of a really good catchphrase in the moment. But I'm gonna go with the worst one probably. It's clobbering time.

Joshua Noel: 00:07:48

Yeah. That's been great. That's been great.

TJ Blackwell: 00:07:50

That's the worst one I can think of. That or Flame on the Fantastic Four.

Joshua Noel: 00:07:53

Yeah, all of them have terrible. Yeah, yeah. Backup One. While our guests are thinking going to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I think it would have been great.

She just would have just shouted, cowabunga. You know, that would have been.

TJ Blackwell: 00:08:07

No. Turtle power.

Joshua Noel: 00:08:08

Turtle power. Yeah, that's Tom. Josh, do either of you have an answer to this terrible question?

Tom Oord: 00:08:18

I have an answer. I have an answer. Actually, it's from Monty Python.

Joshua Noel: 00:08:22

Yes.

Tom Oord: 00:08:22

You know, the money Python theology, beer camp. Yeah. Jesus on the cross leans over to Peter and says, hey, I can see your house from up here.

Joshua Noel: 00:08:35

Fantastic. All right, Josh, come back circle now. You have to give the heresy since you're last.

Josh Patterson: 00:08:44

No, I got nothing, dude. To be honest with you, like, all that keeps coming to mind is like Borat quotes. And, like, I'm quite fond of Borat.

So, like, if Jesus was in the cross and was like, very nice like.

Tom Oord: 00:08:56

That.

Josh Patterson: 00:08:58

I think that would be.

Joshua Noel: 00:08:59

Be some great last words.

Josh Patterson: 00:09:01

This. This cross is nice. Yeah, I don't know. I. That's all I.

Joshua Noel: 00:09:08

A great way for him to stick it to the man, you know, going the government. That. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I love. I.

Josh Patterson: 00:09:20

Other ones involve the F word. And since Tom is present, I respect him too much to speak that way.

Joshua Noel: 00:09:26

God. Yeah. I say he also could have pulled from the Deadpool and Wolverine movie with the let's effing go.

Josh Patterson: 00:09:34

Maximum effort.

Joshua Noel: 00:09:35

Yeah, that's.

Josh Patterson: 00:09:38

That might be a good one. Maximum effort.

Joshua Noel: 00:09:40

Maximum effort. Yeah, that. Yeah, that's a more bad.

Josh Patterson: 00:09:44

That's essential. That's essential. Essential kenosis. If Jesus is on the cross and we see that, but as you know, the Christ, Him, Jesus emptying himself. Maximum effort.

It works.

Joshua Noel: 00:09:57

I like, I should have known that somehow this would have got, like, actually theological and not just. All right, so before we actually get to the reviewing part, I did want to dig a little bit deeper into this. Your idea amnipotence.

So that is all love rather than all power, which is omnipotent. So that's kind of. To just kind of catch people up.

The idea that you're positing is that omnipotence, which is this doctrine that God has all power, needs to be done away with. And instead we need to think of God as all loving and love being the kind of power that God has. And go watch the other episodes.

I'll link them down below in the show notes for those who kind of want to catch up on all the nitty gritty details of all that.

But before we get to the other stuff, since we're talking about omnipotence, I thought it would be Interesting to give you a chance to speak about that through the lens of Good Friday and Easter, since this is releasing on Good Friday. So did you want to maybe just riff on that a little bit?

Tom Oord: 00:10:56

Sure. I think shorthand, I like to say omnipotence is God's power of uncontrolling love.

Because sometimes people will say, will think, well, the power of love still might be controlling from time to time. And I'm pretty clear that I think omnipotence never controls, and God can't control anyone or anything at any time.

When it comes to the cross and Good Friday or the Passion. I think Christians have wrestled with trying to figure out what exactly is being revealed.

On the one hand, I think I want to strongly affirm Jesus as an actual human who is put to death by the Empire and whose suffering is true suffering as a human. But I think we have licensed to wonder if even in this suffering and death, Jesus tells us something about God.

If Jurgen Moltmann were here, he would really emphasize this point that the suffering and death of Jesus tells us about the suffering and death of God. Now, that brings up a really difficult issue, and that is how can a God who necessarily exists die? And that's a huge question theologically.

I don't know if we can solve it right now, but setting that one aside just for a moment, I think we could at least say that this human Jesus points us to or reveals a God of suffering love.

Joshua Noel: 00:12:30

Yeah, yeah, I like that. This is not going to be an Atonement Theory episode, but it is interesting since it's the whole church podcast and Good Friday.

Just kind of thinking of how, like, some of our listeners are going to be people who affirm something like penal substitutionary atonement theory. You know, that this is the big day for them, right? That, like, Christ died for their sins and that's a sacrificial love act.

For me, myself, being more like Christus Victor, I guess, would probably be the thing I'm closest to. I'm like, this is a cool day because it makes the big thing possible.

But this is just kind of like, like, you know, the prequel series, the original series is the best. Star Wars. We all know that Easter is the big day. This is just kind of getting us there.

But, you know, I know everybody kind of has, like, different views of this, but it is interesting. I think love is kind of at the center of pretty much every view I can think of. The question whether or not that's love.

Tom Oord: 00:13:25

Yeah, theoretically, it's at the center. But more than Half of them, I think, suck. They don't portray a God of love.

Josh Patterson: 00:13:32

I agree with Tony.

Tom Oord: 00:13:33

Including the penal satisfaction one.

Josh Patterson: 00:13:36

Yeah.

Joshua Noel: 00:13:36

Well, I think for me personally, and I don't want to distance people who do the penal substitutionary atonement theory, but to me, it feels more like in that theory, Jesus is very loving because he's sacrificing for us, but God is not very loving. Right. Because he's requiring the sacrifice. And it's like, well, couldn't the dude just be like, now y'all are good? You know? Like.

Tom Oord: 00:13:59

Exactly.

Joshua Noel: 00:14:00

Something seems off there to me. Yeah.

TJ Blackwell: 00:14:03

Yeah. So what we are here to talk about today is the Systematic ecology podcast on Mr. Purple, and also the Ziggy podcast about omnipotence.

It's the same ish, which was in response to the whole church, which was in response to the book, which I'm not sure what convinced Tom to write the book, but, you know, maybe God. This all started somewhere.

Joshua Noel: 00:14:25

Maybe God started this. And maybe God started it because TJ whispered in his ears, like, wait a minute, what about love? God was like, yeah, so what about love?

TJ Blackwell: 00:14:34

What about love? So, Josh, you were on that episode.

Joshua Noel: 00:14:37

That's true. Yeah. I can unpack a little bit. Just kind of the basics. For those who don't know and don't feel like listening to us geeks. On the other podcast, Mr.

Purple, the reason I thought of it, his whole character, which before kind of, he got more popular, it was not as big a deal. He was just someone who could control you with speech. Then Bendis was like, actually, that's a terrifying concept. Right?

Like someone who can just control people. And then it kind of gets into this discussion of, like, is he raping people?

Because, you know, he doesn't even know sometimes if they're doing it because they want to or because he said it.

And it gets into this conversation all these different weird, grayish areas where, like, he desperately wants love, but maybe he's incapable of it because he's constantly controlling people. And then the questions I think we brought up in that episode are kind of revolving around this idea of, is it really love if it's controlling?

And then also, if a being is controlling, whether it be God or Mr. Purple, are they even capable of love? You know what I mean? Like, because Mr.

Purple, for him, since no one can choose to love him because he's controlling, love is something he can't truly grasp. So if we're going to put that same characteristic on God, my question is, does that mean God can't Love. And that.

That makes a lot of theology difficult. So I think that's kind of the basis of what we touched on the episode. Y'all. Anything I.

I missed, because I haven't listened to that in a minute, to be honest. Or. Where do y'all want to start?

Josh Patterson: 00:16:05

I mean, for me. So I. I listened to the episode this morning, and one of the things that came to mind for me was actually kind of two.

I don't know, two ideas that, like I said, came to mind when you all were. Were speaking. And I'd be interested. I have a guess. Like, I. I have a guess.

If I were to put on my Tom Ord hat and be like, how would Tom answer this question? I think I could maybe get 75% of the way there, but maybe I'll. I'll throw the two things out there, and then we can see what Tom thinks.

So the two things that came to mind were this. In listening, coercion isn't always necessarily bad, and persuasion isn't always necessarily good.

And so Tom's argument is predicated on the idea that coercion is bad and persuasion is a better form of power. But I can think of instances when both coercion and persuasion could be flipped. So I'm not here to ask questions, but that's what came to mind.

Joshua Noel: 00:17:08

Hey, I love questions.

Before Tom takes that, though, could you just kind of tell us how would you define coercion and persuasion and the difference, so that we're actually addressing what you're getting at?

Josh Patterson: 00:17:19

Yeah, yeah. No, that's good.

Actually, I was at a talk recently with two nerdy philosophers, and the one guy said, like, hey, before we start, I'm going to give a definition of this word that I'm using, because if I define it, you and I can disagree, but at least we won't be confused. And he was like, I'd rather have disagreement than confusion. So I think your instincts are right. Coercion, I think, would be.

To force might be too strong of a word, but to coerce somebody is to. Is to force them, to manipulate them into doing something that you want them to do. So that's, you know, like. I don't know. Yeah, that'd be.

That'd be coercive. Or. Whereas persuasion is more using the power of influence or invitation.

You know, to persuade somebody is not to override their free will, but rather to invite them into considering something, and then they still have that free choice of agreeing, participating, or whatever. So that's how I would see those two as different. Well, you could ask the philosopher to give technical.

Joshua Noel: 00:18:26

Tom, jump in here.

Tom Oord: 00:18:28

Yeah. I think there are three senses of coercion that are used, and because there's three of them, there's lots of confusion that arises.

One sense of coercion is kind of like a threat or a bully.

So if Donald Trump says, I'm going to put tariffs on Canada unless they lower their goods and services to the US that's coercion, trying to force them to do something by threatening some kind of harm or financial loss or something like that. A second sense of coercion I like to call bodily impact.

So if you're standing on a football field and someone hits you from blindside, they're just going to blow you down on the ground. You're coerced, you had no choice in the matter, you didn't see it coming, and your body's now flying away.

The third sense of coercion is the one that I use mostly when I'm talking about theology. And it has a particular philosophical meaning. It means being the only cause that brings about an effect.

So if God were to coerce, God alone would bring about some outcome in that use of coerce. I don't think any person ever coerces another person. In fact, I don't think any quirk can coerce another quark.

I think it's absolutely impossible for anyone, including God, to be the sole or single cause of some outcome. So if it's impossible, I don't know if it's good or bad.

It's kind of like saying our unicorns good or bad, if they don't actually exist, I don't know. Persuasion, however, in the philosophical sense means acting or influencing, to use that word.

Josh just used influencing in such a way that there are other influences that are going to have some kind of effect upon the outcome. I think God always persuades. I think people always persuade.

So what I think we're really talking about is should people coerce in the sense of bullying, threatening, or using bodily force on others? I think that's the big question. And in that case, there might be some cases in which using coercion in terms of bodily force is the best thing to do.

If TJ and I are walking down the street and a car is about ready to hit him and I shove his body out of the car and save his life, I've coerced him in the sense of bodily impact, and he probably think that's a pretty good thing. In terms of threats or bullies, I'm not sure that's ever a good thing. Maybe warnings are close, as one might get to a loving threat.

Like if you warn someone, if you do this, then something bad will happen, so long as you're not the one doing the bad thing. I suppose it's not bullying, but I.

TJ Blackwell: 00:21:26

Like it a lot less when you threaten me.

TJ Blackwell: 00:21:27

Then.

Joshua Noel: 00:21:28

Yeah. Yeah.

Tom Oord: 00:21:31

That's how I think about coercion and persuasion.

Joshua Noel: 00:21:34

Yeah. I'll jump in here for a second to just a couple thoughts. One, just getting to the argument, I feel.

So for me, it feels like if someone's using that kind of argument against what Dr. Ord's saying about how sometimes coercion can be a good thing. It seems like a semantic issue because it's similar to how.

Actually, I'll use the current events kind of deal where people will kind of say by, you know, being Democrat, basically, or just simply being the person at the top of the ticket. So Kamala was basically antisemitic because they weren't doing enough to stop Hamas.

And it's like, okay, well, you're kind of redefining what anti Semitic means. And then everyone's like, yeah, we agree being anti Semitic is bad.

But if you really look at it, what you're talking about isn't necessarily that, though. So you're kind of redefining terms then attacking him off of a new term. So it's not quite a strawman argument, but pretty darn close.

But to kind of get at what I think Josh is getting at, though, go a little bit deeper and then go back to the show that we reviewed in Cismic College. So we're talking about, like, the Jessica Jones show on Netflix, one of the episodes that stood out to me that I talked about. It's basically Mr.

Purple's trying to show Jessica that he can be good. He actually does want love.

And that's the same episode where he's like, I genuinely don't know if people are doing stuff because they want to or because I told them. And in that she tries to make him into a hero at. At one point in the episode. So they go to stop.

I think it was like, domestic abuse or a bank robbery. Insert generic criminal crime thing that superheroes stop here, right? And they go in and it's incredible, right?

He walks in and he's like, hey, let the hostages go free. I'm like, oh, okay. Yeah. It's like, all right, stop shooting people. Yeah, right. And then he immediately goes to now kill yourself.

And Jessica goes, that is not great. He's like. And his thing Was I genuinely would have never known that that was the wrong thing to do. That's why I need you.

And he's trying in that sense to be manipulative without directly controlling her by kind of being like, see, I need you. You have to be around. And at the same time, it's still bringing up this question of, like, was it good that he stopped the crime? I guess.

But, like, is how he did it good? It isn't even possible for it to be good. Like, your brain would be so warped by that kind of action.

And I don't think God is so different from us that we could say that much different about God either. I don't know. What do you guys think about that?

Tom Oord: 00:24:03

Josh, you got an opinion?

Josh Patterson: 00:24:04

Yeah.

Well, I mean, I think for me, what I would have to bring into this situation at this point is, or into the conversation would have to be, like, some of the metaphysical assumptions and the philosophical assumptions that come with process thought that a lot of, you know, at least my understanding of how Tom's argument functions are built on, that don't necessarily apply to you and I that might apply to God. So, for example, one thing would be God doesn't have a physical body to be able to coerce people.

Joshua Noel: 00:24:44

You're gonna say that on Good Friday.

Josh Patterson: 00:24:47

All right, Jesus aside, we'll assume, right incarnation. But if we're gonna do that, if you want my Good Friday take, that's a whole nother thing, because I don't think people.

Christians take seriously enough the death of God. And I'm gonna use that philosophically.

But anyway, God doesn't have a physical body, which makes it very difficult to push people out of the way, you know, to save TJ from the car. And also, there's some assumptions, you know, just within how process functions in general, like process metaphysics.

But also, you know, if you want to assume something like pan experientialism or panpsychism, that also muddies the waters when it comes to things that God can and can't do. What would constitute as something being coercive or manipulative based off those assumptions?

A lot of process people assume pan experientialism to be true. That messes things up. So I think it's. It's bigger than the argument of, like, is love coercive or non coercive?

We can say, okay, we think love is not coercive in the philosophical sense, but it appears that there's things that we people can do or Mr. Purple can do that you're saying, like, oh, If God did that, it would be bad.

And it's because there's these different assumptions baked in to the God question that aren't present for you. And I. I don't know if that makes sense, but that's. I think that. I think that's part of the disconnect.

Joshua Noel: 00:26:20

Yeah, well, that's. To me, that's why I think story is so powerful. Right.

Because, like, as soon as I say God being controlling isn't loving, a lot of people are defensive and they're going to push back and argue back, whatever. But I could show them that TV show and be like, do you think what he did was good or bad? And it's a lot.

People have a lot more freedom to really address whether or not that is good or bad.

And then I think, okay, once we settle that and you're saying God is all good, so let's take these principles and tell me how that impacts your theology at that point. Right. So that's why I think it's helpful to start with story. In some ways, I'm going to push you a little bit before Tom responds.

Not on anything you said. I just want a clear answer on a different part of the question. I guess when Mr.

Purple stopped the climb up until the part that he tried to get the guy to kill himself, I think we'll all agree forcing someone to kill himself is bad. Is what he did good. He controlled a bunch of people. He forced them to let the hostages go. They didn't have a choice, so he took their choice away.

But the hostages were freed.

Josh Patterson: 00:27:25

Yeah. So I. I would say that perhaps that situation was good. But what I take issue with would be this. If Mr. Purple.

So, like, now I'm taking it out of just that situation and pushing it up to the register of God. If Mr. Purple could prevent all cases of crime at all times, not just the one, and chooses not to, I think that puts Mr.

Purple on the hook, so to speak, for the crimes. And so if he presented in that one spot, okay, that was good. But if Mr. Purple didn't continue to do that, I would take issue with it.

And so I think when it gets pushed out to God, it's the same problem for me.

If God could prevent genuine suffering and evil in the world and only does it sometimes and not every time, I think that makes God liable for the instances when God chooses not to prevent those things. So it might be good in that moment, but if you expand it, then I have a problem.

TJ Blackwell: 00:28:28

So. So how do you do with, like the Minority Report where, you know, they do have recognition of a crime that's gonna happen, but it's not all of them.

What then?

Josh Patterson: 00:28:38

What do you mean? Sorry.

TJ Blackwell: 00:28:39

So, like, the Minority Report has the same qualm, I guess, where they get reports of major crimes that are going to happen and they mobilize to stop them before they happen, which.

Josh Patterson: 00:28:51

Okay.

TJ Blackwell: 00:28:51

Have you. You need to watch it. If you haven't, it's really good.

Tom Oord: 00:28:56

I can respond to this one show.

Joshua Noel: 00:28:59

Or real life or what. What is happening. This just sounds old.

Tom Oord: 00:29:04

To give you a context, in the Minority port, there's this machine allows them to see the future, to see what crimes are about ready to happen. And since they can see the future, they can intervene in time to stop them before they're going to happen. Well, it turns out that it's not fully.

It's not inerrant. It makes problems. And there's this Minority Report that's always there as well. What could also happen? But to answer that question, T.J.

i think the usual standard, classic view of God falters in light of the Minority Report, because that classic view has a God who knows exactly what's going to happen in the future and has the power to stop it whenever that God wants to.

But the God that at least Josh and I believe in doesn't know the future with absolute certainty and so can't foresee with certainty when a crime is going to happen to be able to prevent it.

TJ Blackwell: 00:30:03

Yeah. So it's a lot more like. I wish I remember what that machine was called from the Minority Report. It's just a lot more like that.

Tom Oord: 00:30:09

It's a good movie. Tom Cruise is the lead. Yeah. You guys ought to watch it now.

Joshua Noel: 00:30:14

I am going to watch it. I'm interested.

Tom Oord: 00:30:16

I think there's one other issue, though, that comes into play as Josh was talking, I was saying. Yep, I agree with everything he says, but he's pointing to a difference between Mr.

Purple, even though I've never seen this show, and God in the show.

Joshua Noel: 00:30:29

It'S usually called Kilgrave. I'm just a big comic nerd. So it's still Mr. Purple to me.

Tom Oord: 00:30:34

Okay. And that difference is that most people, myself included, think that God is omnipresent.

And so God would be directly present to every potential evil that could occur. And because directly present, if that God was omnipotent, if that God should. If that God's loving. Stop it.

So it's hard to do these analogies when you're talking about a localized individual like Mr. Purple versus an omnipresent spirit like most people think God is.

Joshua Noel: 00:31:05

Yeah, but in that one moment, I'm going to push you on the same thing. Is what Mr. Purple did good?

Tom Oord: 00:31:12

Yeah. I don't know the scenario well enough, but if you're saying he did something that had both good, he prevented some evil but then caused other evil.

Is that what you're saying?

Joshua Noel: 00:31:23

He went into a situation, he took people's choice away, he forced the bad guys to let the innocent people go free, basically. But by taking their choice away, he's still doing something bad even though it was to save people in that instance.

Tom Oord: 00:31:40

Yeah. I guess my answer to that is, who's faster, unicorns or mermaids? And by that I mean.

By that I mean when we have a scenario that's not realistic, in other words, this scenario has a person who's controlling other people, and I don't think that's ever possible at any time, then that's speculating on something that's, you know, it's not going to be get us anywhere because it's like a unicorn or a mermaid in a race.

Joshua Noel: 00:32:10

Well, here's why I think it's important, because I think if we can pin that down and say, yes, it was good because the outcome was good, then that brings a lot of questions to okay, so if God knows the future, the outcome is going to be good. That means everything he does must be good.

But if we pin it down and say the act was bad because he was taking choice away, even though the outcome was good, that would suggest that God can't just be good because the outcome might be good in the end.

Tom Oord: 00:32:37

But that's where Josh's answer comes in, which I agree entirely with. Josh said, well, if he could take away freedom sometimes and doesn't do it all the time to prevent evil, then he's asleep on the job.

He's not perfectly good. So I would go with Josh's answer there.

Joshua Noel: 00:32:55

Okay, I'm going to get a little bit into my own kind of weird thoughts and then let you guys rip it and see if there's anything else you want to say and we can start wrapping this up. Coming into like some weird, like maybe a little bit of white heading, a little bit Taoist, I don't know, we'll see. But so.

So for me, just kind of like my own, I guess, ontological view of God maybe, you know, I'm thinking from the wisdom of the Taoist tradition of like this harmony, the thing that connects us all. And to me, like God is that thing. But also from the Christian tradition, I still think I can commune with the harmony itself.

So I think both the thing that connects us all as well as this entity that I am able to converse with. And just to pile on things, I'm not convinced that time is real. What I know is real is each moment I'm given.

So I'm not guaranteed the outcome of any decision.

So I would say that any one act taking choice away, you know, voting for someone with guilty of sexual assault, whatever, it does not matter what the outcome is. What you did in that moment was still wrong. So I think the act itself matters regardless of the outcome.

So to me, taking their choice away, even though people got freedom, were saved, taking people's choice away was still wrong in that instance. That would just be kind of how I look at it. The outcome can be good without the action being good.

I guess would be another way of working that that's less complicated.

Tom Oord: 00:34:24

Yeah. In ethics, this is a debate on whether or not actions are good based on their consequences or their motives.

And I'm in the camp that thinks that motives are more important than consequences. But the motive has to be for good consequences. So consequences still matter. It's just that the motive is for good consequences.

So if I do something out of love for my wife that ends in disaster and harms people, I wouldn't say I did evil because my motives were good.

On the other hand, if I try to hurt somebody but accidentally help them, I wouldn't say I'm loving because I had bad motives and they ended up having good consequences. So I'm with you on there, but when it comes to time, I think everybody who denies the reality of time is a hypocrite.

Joshua Noel: 00:35:12

All right. Heresy, hypocrite. I'm all of it today. It's fine.

Tom Oord: 00:35:17

Well, we all live as if time is real. Why go around pretending like it's not? No one can do it and live consistently.

Joshua Noel: 00:35:24

Well, yes, yes and no. Maybe that's, that's a talk for. Because, you know, you can believe in space time without believing in time. They are different.

Tom Oord: 00:35:35

I think our conceptions of time are going to vary and there's going to be different models for time, etc. But I think every single one of us, including you, we all live as if time is real. I call it experiential, non negotiable. None of us gets out of that.

Joshua Noel: 00:35:51

That's, that's fair.

TJ Blackwell: 00:35:54

It could not exist.

Joshua Noel: 00:35:55

But.

TJ Blackwell: 00:35:56

But we still have to live like it does.

Joshua Noel: 00:35:58

So. Yeah. So it doesn't matter anyway. Yeah. Did y'all have anything else you wanted to, to throw out there from that? The other podcast? I.

I know at some point I. I said something that I was like, man, Tom's, Tom's gonna push me on that. But I don't remember what it was.

Tom Oord: 00:36:11

I'd like to riff a little bit of something on what Josh Patterson said because he brought in process thought and pan experientialism and these big words and such. I think Josh is pointing to something that is crucial for this discussion of Mr. Purple God, how we live our lives, etc.

And that is if we're going to analyze not only God's action, but our own actions in terms of its morality, goodness, badness, appropriateness, or whatever, we have to take into account a whole wide variety of things pertaining to life, what philosophers called an ontology, what we think the world is like, what it's made up of.

And most people in the Western, in Western philosophy have had a view that said something like the small things of existence, maybe the quarks, cells, worms, plants, those things are inanimate stuff. They have no mentality, they have no freedom, they have no spontaneity.

And then somehow, maybe it was an act of God, maybe evolution, somehow mentality and consciousness emerged for some people. They think only humans have it. Other people think dogs and dolphins and elephants have it. But somehow in life, this agency mentality emerged.

And then when we talk about divine action or our action, then we try to account for that in terms of the schema. And that's why some people just don't like the idea of a God who controls free will.

Creatures like you and me and maybe dogs and dolphins and elephants, but they're usually pretty okay with God controlling quarks and worms and plants.

But what Josh is pointing to is a different way of looking at reality that says that even down to the smallest level, there's some kind of subjectivity, mentality, agency.

And if that's right, and it's a big if, but I think it's a good gamble if that's right, then God's love and action, even toward the quarks, would be wrong if it was controlling, just like it would be wrong for God to control free will humans, if you believe it's wrong.

But, you know, assuming you're a free will theist, and so if you extend that all the way down to the smallest parts of reality, I think you can provide a holistic picture of God's action in the world that can answer the biggest objections to belief in God. At all.

Joshua Noel: 00:38:56

Yeah, I don't know if this builds on that or compliments that or what. And it's because, you know, people like Josh Patterson and Tripp and I think even you've mentioned my head before.

Anyway, you guys made me think too much. And I. Especially since I was already leaning the daoist thing.

I am convinced all of us are defined by our relationships, not necessarily the bits and pieces that make us. And I think that's interesting about. With what you were just talking about and in this conversation.

And it kind of brings around circle for all those who are listening. Like, why does any of this matter? Because. Whatever. And I'll go back to Mr. Purple because again, I think it's easier.

We see that he is incapable of love and that defines his character because every time he speaks, people are controlled. So he's not able to be in an open relationship. See if I did there.

But because of that, that defines who he is because that's his relationship to everyone else. So I think that's true of each of us.

So I think whatever you think of God in his relationship to you, you know, when we say God is love, automatically we're defining him by his relationship to everything, right? Because he is love.

And I think if you don't get something right about God's relationship to you, it's hard for you to be in a proper relationship with him or, you know, the divine, it, she, whatever. You, you know, enter a pronoun here.

So I think it's important for us to understand, you know, just like it wouldn't really work if I knew my wife was married to me, but she didn't know that wouldn't work. So I think it's important for us to understand our relationships so that we're engaging with them properly.

So that's kind of why I would say all of this is important and relationships matter, including your relationship to God and Jesus and one another, etc. Etc. What do you. What do you think about that, Tom? Do you have any final thoughts, words?

Tom Oord: 00:40:46

I like that. Maybe my final thought is that those of us who are listening, who may be thinking, okay, well, this God is love thing, that seems pretty obvious.

Not saying anything new here. God is relational. That sounds nice.

I just might want to remind them that the most important, the most influential Christian theologians in history and many of the most influential Muslim and Jewish Christians, they believed that we could love God, but God couldn't love us back. God didn't have the kind of relational influence for us to influence that God. And so what we're talking about here is actually a pretty radical idea.

I think it's pretty biblical, but it's not what most Christian theologians have thought throughout history.

Joshua Noel: 00:41:37

Why did they say that he couldn't love us back? For those who might not be familiar.

Tom Oord: 00:41:41

Yeah, they were really worried that a God who was affected by creation could be influenced to be bad, to be less than perfect.

They wanted a God who is in all ways unchanging and unaffected because they thought any effect from a sinful world or just anything less than perfect would make God less than perfect. And they didn't realize that they could affirm God's perfect nature of love, but also have a God who really perfectly changes and is influenced.

But yeah, that's a major issue, actually, that, that brings me to what I want to invite the three of you to and anybody who's listening to this. I have decided to write a three volume systematic theology of love. And I'm going to be posting chapters of this on my substack account.

And I'd love for you to chime in and give me suggestions on how to improve it. The first volume is going to have about 12 chapters and I think I've got eight of them written.

But I'm going to be bringing them out slowly in the coming months. If you'd be interested in helping me think through a systematic theology of love, come on over to my substack and check it out.

Joshua Noel: 00:42:57

Yeah, yeah, I think I am following your subject. I'm pretty sure I gotta double check. So yeah, I'll be happy to engage with that and jump over there too. So, yeah, this has been fun.

This has been fun.

TJ Blackwell: 00:43:11

And now I am on your substack. So really quick, tell us about hortcon and then we're going to wrap this up.

Tom Oord: 00:43:16

Well, Josh and I are going to be this summer at a really great resort called the Grand Targhee Resort between Teton national park and Yellowstone National Park. A Monday through Friday event on open and relational theology.

We fly in and listen to speakers and go on hikes and just spend a great week together talking with people about big ideas related to open relational thought. And it's a family friendly kind of a thing. We don't work people too hard.

We have conversations until noon and then the rest of the day is pretty much off until evening. And then Josh is going to come in and help us in the evening to have conversations and have some fun at the bar. So yeah, we'd love to have you come.

It's like a grand, I think, for A person. Thousand dollars a person if you're willing to share a room, and maybe 1,500 if you're single families or two grand or something like that.

But given the kind of prices in that part of the world, it's very reasonable. And more importantly, you get to hang out with fantastic people for a week.

Joshua Noel: 00:44:23

Yeah, yeah. I'm planning attending this year. It's gonna be really cool.

It also, I think the price, if I remember right, it includes like your stay and some food and drink, right?

Tom Oord: 00:44:33

Yes. Right. Includes your accommodations and probably about two thirds of your meals.

Joshua Noel: 00:44:38

Yeah, yeah. And there's like horseback riding going on apparently. We're gonna like Yellowstone. We're gonna. We're gonna show up at some point. I'm like, this.

This looks pretty rad. This looks pretty cool. Yeah.

Tom Oord: 00:44:48

Yeah. The resort is famous in the summer for their downhill mountain biking because they take the ski runs and they put this great mountain bike trek.

But people like me, we go on hikes, and that'll be me.

Joshua Noel: 00:45:02

My leg doesn't permit biking yet, but hiking. Hiking I can do. Yeah. So I'm excited for that. And, you know, I think we've shown a little bit.

Some of us may just differ a little bit on ontology or, like, how we think of, like, God's relation to time or the future or process thought. But all of us kind of agree on this open and relational aspect.

So I'm excited to have this ortcon to learn a little bit more on the stuff I'm wrong about, because I know I'm wrong about plenty. If we say that's our fact collection, that's what's going to bring people together.

They're going to go there, they're going to learn about their relationship to God, and that's going to help their relationship to one another. If we do that, and that's our practical action tomorrow, what do you think will change for those who attend or.

Tom Oord: 00:45:44

Most people who come leave thinking? I found my tribe. A lot of people show up, and some of them are newbies. They don't really know open and relational thought.

Others are experts, but just the kind of community that gels there makes people feel like this is a family.

TJ Blackwell: 00:46:04

All right.

Joshua Noel: 00:46:04

Yeah. Yeah. I'm excited for it.

Tom Oord: 00:46:06

So.

TJ Blackwell: 00:46:09

Hey, guys, I just wanted to take a quick break here. We skipped the God moment section in this bonus episode just due to time constraint.

However, for the audio, I wanted to add something because after the episode, we all talked about that and we mentioned that this episode itself was a God moment for us. So throughout this episode, we're just talking about the nature of God, what it means that God is loving, and what is our relationship to God.

And sometimes just meditating, all those things on itself.

You don't need, like a big moment of something that happened to you, but just to meditate on these things, to discuss them with other people, to think about God's love. Can itself be a God moment? I thought it was just really cool. We all kind of mentioned that.

So I wanted to add that in here and give you guys a chance, have your own God moment after the episode, just take some time to meditate on these things. What is God's relationship to each of us, to all creation, the quirks, everything? And what does that relationship he has mean to you?

Especially on this Good Friday as we meditate on what it mean that God died. Also, after the show, we end up doing a Patreon segment, just me and the other Josh talking.

We went through that rant he wanted to do about Good Friday, and we discussed some other stuff that we think are fundamental theological truths that we find incredibly important for all Christians. So please check that out over on Patreon.

We actually listed it as free on Patreon, so if you go to Patreon, you don't need to pay anything to check that out. You can just listen to it as it is. I think it's worth your time, and I would really appreciate you guys just hearing what Josh had to say.

And I don't know, I love these guys. I appreciate them and I appreciate all of you for being part of this God moment.

TJ Blackwell: 00:47:41

If you like the show, please consider sharing with a friend. Share with an enemy. Share with your cousins. If you don't have cousins, share it with one of mine. They're tired of listening to me say it.

So, you know, buy the merch, support the show. It means a lot. And it's comfy. And you're gonna need something to wear hiking down that mountain.

Joshua Noel: 00:47:59

Yeah, get some comfy whole church merch for our hikes and hang out with us there. It'll be a fun time. I don't think any other podcast in the network will. Will be there, but other shows I'm on.

If you want to listen to dummy for theology and then come tell me why I'm a dummy at work on. You could do that. Other things maybe to check out. Let nothing move you, Christian Ashley.

If you want to hear someone who's very different from most of us in their theology, he's also on the network and we love Christian Also, Kung Fu Pete's party. Brandon Knight. If you just want some fun kung fu and pizza. Lots more fun than that.

TJ Blackwell: 00:48:33

Yeah. And speaking of Brandon Knight, I'm pretty sure he's going to be on next whole church.

The release schedule, if I'm right, means next week we're going to be talking with Brandon Knight about his job as a ninja coach.

Joshua Noel: 00:48:45

Oh, no, that's like two weeks from now.

TJ Blackwell: 00:48:47

Sweet. Then next. You know, that's great. Josh Patterson next.

It just feels weird to say that with him right here and us having done the right recording in the past, I'm taking over.

Josh Patterson: 00:48:59

I'm being coercive and taking over the whole Truth Network.

TJ Blackwell: 00:49:02

Yeah. So coming up, we've got Josh Patterson, then Brandon Knight. And then we're gonna do an encore episode for the Job Fair series on comic book writing.

And then we're gonna have a round table of pastors and professors to reflect on the series. And at the end of season one.

Joshua Noel: 00:49:17

Francis Chan, also, the encore has been changed. It's now about science with Andy Walsh. He's a. The chief science officer somewhere.

Tom Oord: 00:49:25

But that's a cool title. Very Star Trek. And he's a great guy.

Joshua Noel: 00:49:29

Yeah. Another host, Systematic Ecology. So check out that show. And then, yeah, bug Francis Chan for us because we won't.