---------------

 Arise, shine, for your light has come,
    and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you.
For behold, darkness shall cover the earth,
    and thick darkness the peoples;
but the Lord will arise upon you,
    and his glory will be seen upon you.
And nations shall come to your light,
    and kings to the brightness of your rising

...

Foreigners shall build up your walls,
    and their kings shall minister to you;
for in my wrath I struck you,
    but in my favor I have had mercy on you.
Your gates shall be open continually;
    day and night they shall not be shut,
that people may bring to you the wealth of the nations,
    with their kings led in procession.
For the nation and kingdom
    that will not serve you shall perish;
    those nations shall be utterly laid waste.
The glory of Lebanon shall come to you,
    the cypress, the plane, and the pine,
to beautify the place of my sanctuary,
    and I will make the place of my feet glorious.
The sons of those who afflicted you
    shall come bending low to you,
and all who despised you
    shall bow down at your feet;
they shall call you the City of the Lord,
    the Zion of the Holy One of Israel

...

The sun shall be no more
    your light by day,
nor for brightness shall the moon
    give you light;
but the Lord will be your everlasting light,
    and your God will be your glory.
 Your sun shall no more go down,
    nor your moon withdraw itself;
for the Lord will be your everlasting light,
    and your days of mourning shall be ended

---------------------------

And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/2/2012 11:25:52 AM (GMT-6)

To me, the biblical argument (ie Revelation)...along with the metaphysical argument (ie. a sentient creature's irrevocable elimination of further God-ward movement is metaphysically impossible)...along with the "teleological"  (ie What would be the the purpose?) argument...all just leads to the conclusion of eventual universal reconciliation most likely being true.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/2/2012 11:21:43 AM (GMT-6)

Tom: Greg’s metaphysics of freedom and loving relations forbids the possibility that babies who die waking up in heaven. We MUST freely choose our way into relationship with God, that means babies (and the mentally handicapped) must make this journey post-mortem.

Jeff: The thing we have to remember here is that the existence of SIN by definition means that God doesn't get everything He intended. What is clear to me, analogically, is that a competent, benevolent Designer of this world created it such that it was possible for:

1) NO sin to have occurred,
2) all developing eyes would have seen,
3) all humans would come into a relationship with God via LFW-conditioned SOFA's.

If any of these 3 are not the case in this world, then

1) SOMETHING WENT WRONG or
2) God's intent is nothing we can infer analogically, or
3) God is not competent/benevolent.

3) proves too much. It proves we can't meaningully argue about this stuff with WARRANTED beliefs. 1) is clearly true if sin exists. For sin is something gone awry, by definition.

So it's 2) that makes Greg think infants that die must relate to God via LFW, post-mortem. I say, insomuch as every developing eye didn't in fact ultimately see, I have no reason to believe that every infant comes into relationship with God via LFW SOFA's. Obviously both were ORIGINALLY intended. But once we posit that there is anything that was originally intended not coming to pass, I don't see how post-mortem infant "becoming" is a metaphysical necessity either. Some things were risked in creation. So long as existence is worth it to all sentient creatures, God pulled it off benevolently and competently. That's why DEGREE is the bottom line to me. God is trying to get as MUCH satisfaction from creation as possible. But there never was even a CHANCE that it might have been UNworth it to Him, GIVEN HIS COMPETENCE. The risk has to do with the DEGREE of satisfaction that might not obtain that actually COULD have obtained, even though creation will be worth it to God and creatures, regardless.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 3/8/2012 7:46:47 AM (GMT-6)

Jeff: As for delegating the killing to humans, that's no different than God delegating capital punishment to the State. The real issue is that we see the purpose of the State easier than the purpose of the Caananite conquest. The latter is easily explicable in terms of the scriptural history and theology, though. It was never meant to be judged in isolation from the rest of divine providence in history.

Tom: Thanks Jeff. If we have independent reasons to believe that God actually commanded genocide and that God is maximally benevolent, THEN we can believe that God’s ordering genocide is explicable in terms of that love. But it’s THAT God actually commanded genocide which is the issue of debate (I thought). And that he did so is objected to because (so the argument goes) it’s not conceivably explicable that a God of love would pursue the genocidal extinction of OT people groups. It’s conceivable that a God of love would cause suffering if that suffering was the necessary means to some benevolent (worthwhile) end, yes. But some are having trouble conceiving of the “necessity” of OT genocide; i.e., its necessity to human redemption. That’s what has to be explicated.

I don’t particularly want to go Greg’s route, but I need to see how the genocide of OT people groups was ‘necessary’ to God’s getting the incarnation and redemption of the world. Sure, UR means everybody parties in the end and all suffering fades from view. But that doesn’t mean God’s benevolence wouldn’t avoid pursuing/bringing about “unnecessary” suffering. It WOULD avoid such suffering. So how is all the OT God-ordered violence a necessary means to the redemption and glorification of the world in Christ?

Tom

T: If we have independent reasons to believe that God actually commanded genocide and that God is maximally benevolent

Jeff:  Well, we need to believe that God is benevolent and competent just to ground any other belief in a warranted way--i.e., in a way where normativity can apply to beliefs such that a belief can be warranted, e.g. As for independent reasons, we have the signs and wonders of the NT prophets/apostles. They confirmed Christ's interpretation of EQUIVOCAL verses about his own suffering and death. But that implies that the OT scriptures themselves were, as Christ claimed, the very word of God. Those interpretations of EQUIVOCAL messianic prophecies needed no confirmation if OT scripture, per se, is not actually prophetic in the first place. There is no rational way to sever the OT and the NT. They're joined at the hip if there is any rationality to the historical approach to the NT at all.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 3/8/2012 2:50:14 PM (GMT-6)

The notion that leaven leavens the whole lump is a principle that even Paul and Christ appeal to.

Think about it, what does the NT say about evil supernatural intervention in the NT? That the very LYING signs and wonders on the "other" side can impact the whole WORLD for evil.  That theme runs through the whole bible--that Satan's ultimate goal is WORLD WORSHIP of himself.

This is why I say positing the inability of creaturely volition to diminish divine satisfaction in any sense robs us of explanatory power. It renders too much scriptural language seemingly meaningless--even analogically. And that scriptural language is precisely our ticket to explaining divine "violence" consistently with a doable theodicy.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 3/9/2012 8:14:43 AM (GMT-6)