 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Self-Reference | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/24/2010 4:36 PM (GMT -6) |   | I think we got it, Brandon. Philosophical grounding for UR, complete with LFW intact. You think? 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/24/2010 4:51:10 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/24/2010 4:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Whole thread
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/24/2010 4:41:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/24/2010 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | I hear ya. What do you mean by "original constitution" ie., spatial beings conditioned in time and space?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/24/2010 4:46 PM (GMT -6) | | | Greg in SATPOE. Page 194
"The quality of freedom is conditioned by our original constitution. Agents' quality of freedom is significantly conditioned by the nature they were created with and the parameters of possible roles that the Creator designed for them when they were created."
We're gonna say that part of this "original constitution" deals with the irrevocability of creaturely sentient self-reference and self-determination...and the corresponding irrevocability of the capacity to perceive and enjoy God forever (given God's "intentions" for Creation).
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/24/2010 4:50:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/24/2010 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Thinking of the Presentation slides...Slide #10 and 11.
How come the Triangle is never seen WITHIN the human being? That's where it should be, right? Slide #10 should be in each human figure.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/24/2010 5:44:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/24/2010 8:28 PM (GMT -6) | | But given the assumption that UR is valid and that it IS metaphysically ground in the parameters of the rules that God has set up as laid out in Greg's "Six Theses" (which I always thought you were cool with) then the deal seems pretty much sealed at this point.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/24/2010 8:54 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Haven't broke open SATPOE in a long time. I remember reading it on midnights on my job when it first came out. But I was thinking essentially what Greg says there.
Also, I find it interesting that that part of human constitution not affected by the fall is the irrevocable capacity to "to perceive and enjoy God forever." This is what the Creator designed them for. For example, to be a portal and conduit designed to recieve God's love. That's the metaphysical groundedness of the creature. Once that's in place, then it seems that UR is valid.
In other words, what other reason would there be for this designed portal to be left intact?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 5/24/2010 9:08:38 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/24/2010 10:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey One Love, I'll give it a go. I'm still in mourning of LOST, but I'll try to focus 
One Love: Daniel. You are one of the resident annihilationists. Is what's being said above making sense to you?
Daniel: Does it make sense? Sure, I'm just not sure I agree. We'll see though.
One Love: Freedom to choose or reject love requires the ability to relate oneself to oneself as a chooser or rejector of love. Without any ability to self-reference, there can be no capacity to have any level of self-awareness for the sake of choice, let alone personal identity of "who" the choice belongs to. The capacity to love cannot exist without a "self" who can have self-knowledge (and intentionality based on such) as the basis for the potential of choosing.
Daniel: Sure. The choice is made within a self. However, annihilation doesn't require that the self continue to choose to love, or rather reject love. Remember, I'm not on board with the 'asymmetry" of freedom. It might be right, but I just don't see it reflected that way in the world (and I can't use anything but what I see in the world to base my metaphysics off of). There isn't a asymmetry of freedom within people within the context of their decisions to accept or reject God. Love requires freedom. And freedom isn't freedom unless both sides of the coin are able to be actualized. Remember the Zizek quote?
The burning question is, of course, whether or not the culmination of life choices/character decisions on the day of judgement is the ending of our ability to choose to move toward God or away from God. I don't buy the asymmetry. Satan (as far as we know) was in perfect relation to God, and he rebelled. If the freedom of human choices in heaven is reduced to the freedom to move toward God then it is no freedom at all. UR HAS to say that after the day of judgement, human beings have the capacity to move toward or away from God, it doesn't work any other way. If that capacity lurks within the human heart, then there will always be the possibility of mis-relation.
One Love: That is to say this: the scope and duration of creaturely freedom to misrelate to God is FUNDAMENTALLY CONDITIONED by the "original constitution" of creaturely self-referencing, self-determining beings, the "ongoing influence" of God's Personal Presence, and God's "intentions" for Creation ala the Aesthetic Argument.
Daniel: This is where you cease to address annihilationism. God's judgement on the Day of the Lord is what annihilates. Freedom requires risk. "Creatures may make choices that oppose his will for their lives". The unrepentant refuse to enter into God's grace, and BECAUSE a created being cannot be the ontological grounding of itself, it ceases. It becomes non-being. It becomes nothing. God allows ,or judges that, the created being become the culmination of their choices, a rejection of the grounding of God in love. And because such a being cannot obtain, *poof*. What was once being, is now non-being.
One Love :In short, God cannot stop being God...and we cannot stop being creatures in God's image in God's Energies. Everything works out from that.
Daniel: Do you see how my understanding of annihilationism isn't countered with this? I hope I'm being clear.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 5/24/2010 10:16:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/24/2010 10:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, Daniel. LOTS!
Daniel:
The unrepentant refuse to enter into God's grace, and BECAUSE a created being cannot be the ontological grounding of itself, it ceases. It becomes non-being. It becomes nothing. God allows the created being the culmination of their choices, a rejection of the grounding of God in love.
Ok. So you have God annihilating the creature (via fiat) in accordance with the creature's desire to be separate from God. You don't have a view of creaturely SELF-annihilation. More like God basically gives creatures "what they want", right? Well, think about something...
If it is indeed true that...
1) God is the Supreme Good for all created persons,
2) all created persons have the irrevocable capacity to perceive and enjoy God as the Supreme Good forever, and
3) God's intentions for Creation include maximization of God's experience of beauty in Creation through maximizing potential for creaturely perception and enjoyment of God as the Supreme God forever...
then wouldn't God be straight up irrational to destroy such a being of possibility? Even IF we took the stance of "symmetry", God would be better off (all things considered) in NOT annihilating a given being. Why give up on a being as a "lost cause" when you KNOW there's always a chance of them coming back around? Even in your situation of "symmetry" in freedom to choose God that would have to be said, right? Bottom line: God would be working AGAINST his own best interests (and the best interest of his creations) if he were to annihilate creaturely beings merely because of their level of despair against God.
So, Daniel, do you believe the 3 claims above are true? If so, then would it be rational for God to utterly annihilate any creaturely being who had the genuine capacity to perceive and enjoy God forever?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/24/2010 10:51:19 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 5/24/2010 10:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: "The unrepentant refuse to enter into God's grace, and BECAUSE a created being cannot be the ontological grounding of itself, it ceases. It becomes non-being. It becomes nothing. God allows ,or judges that, the created being become the culmination of their choices, a rejection of the grounding of God in love. And because such a being cannot obtain, *poof*. What was once being, is now non-being."
I made this point before...but let's try it again...
What I am about to say doesn't necessarily "annihilate" annihilation...but it does address the concept of annihilation if annihilation is what Daniel is outlining in his quote above. Annihilation cannot be "What was once being, is now non-being."
I'm not denying the possibility of something that has "being" being utterly destroyed so that the "being" of it no longer exists...but it has not passed into a state of non-being. For example, if one of my children rejected God to the point of annihilation...they would be irrevocably destroyed...but I still have my memories and love of them. That is not destroyed. And SOMETHING other than "non-being" must ground and/or explain my memories and love of them. There is still "being" there even if the "being" has been destroyed. It can be destroyed, but not to the point of "non-being". | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 5/24/2010 10:45 PM (GMT -6) | | D: "But we ain't process theists like that. ;-)"
No sir, we are not! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 5/24/2010 10:48 PM (GMT -6) | | So....how am I going to have FULLNESS of joy...if I have knowledge of irrevocable loss.
Yep, methinks UR is the only game in town. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 5/24/2010 10:54 PM (GMT -6) | | There is the possibility of joy in 1) attainment of desire and 2) hope for the future attainment of desire
There is no joy in the definite hopelessness of desire. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/24/2010 11:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey One love,
One Love: 2) all created persons have the irrevocable capacity to perceive and enjoy God as the Supreme Good forever, and
Daniel: If we have the irrevocable capacity to perceive and enjoy God as the Supreme Good forever. Then we have the irrevocable capacity to mis-perceive and reject God as the Supreme Good forever. Why? TWT 1. "By definition, love must be freely chosen". In UR, it must be, 100% of the time, a conscious decision to perceive and enjoy God, because it's an act of "freedom". In my construction it is the fulfillment of freedom. We are no longer beings who are free to reject or accept God because we have freely chosen to become beings who have accepted God. The becoming of the beings who will eventually be the glorified humanity have a historical perspective and have chosen to become what they are. That choice cannot be undone. At least, maybe, I think
One Love: Why give up on a being as a "lost cause" when you KNOW there's always a chance of them coming back around?
Daniel: Because you and me differ on what THIS world, and consequently the eschaton, mean. I see THIS as the period in which our choices are made. I see the eschaton as the period in which our choices are actualized. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/24/2010 11:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Asher,
Asher: I'm not denying the possibility of something that has "being" being utterly destroyed so that the "being" of it no longer exists...but it has not passed into a state of non-being. For example, if one of my children rejected God to the point of annihilation...they would be irrevocably destroyed...but I still have my memories and love of them. That is not destroyed. And SOMETHING other than "non-being" must ground and/or explain my memories and love of them.
Daniel: Your point wasn't taken last time, because I don't follow it. Assume an atheistic metaphysic for arguments sake. Your great grand parents are dead. Maybe they were alive until you were 8 or 9. They are no longer. Within an atheistic model, the person that was them is non-being. (this is all laid out clearly in Sartre's work). Your memory of them does not constitute a being of them. it constitutes a memory, or being, for you. In Phenomenology this would be the subjective pole of the consciousness. The external, actual, object is irrelevant. It could have being, it might have non-being. It might have never existed in the first place and is imagined. Your subjective thoughts, or memories, of past being have no bearing on the continuation of being in said being (wow, that was confusing).
Memory doesn't constitute being. So I don't really understand what you're trying to say.
Asher: There is still "being" there even if the "being" has been destroyed. It can be destroyed, but not to the point of "non-being".
Daniel: Philosophically speaking, this statement doesn't make any sense. I don't know what you mean by being or non-being. You're using them in very non-traditional ways. At least, none of the traditions I'm familiar with. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/24/2010 11:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel:
If we have the irrevocable capacity to perceive and enjoy God as the Supreme Good forever. Then we have the irrevocable capacity to mis-perceive and reject God as the Supreme Good forever. Why? TWT 1. "By definition, love must be freely chosen". In UR, it must be, 100% of the time, a conscious decision to perceive and enjoy God, because it's an act of "freedom".
As long as you say that TWT 1 is necessarily "conditioned" by TWT 5 and 6, I'm good. You can't separate any of the TWTs from each other with this.
Enjoying God's love must be freely chosen by the creaturely being. At the same time, all creaturely beings are high-wired with the irrevocable potential to perceive and enjoy God's love at all times...and the irrevocable potential to respond to God's continually-given invitation for love relationship from within their very "self" at all times. All this works in tandem.
***************************************
Daniel:
In my construction it is the fulfillment of freedom. We are no longer beings who are free to reject or accept God because we have freely chosen to become beings who have accepted God. The becoming of the beings who will eventually be the glorified humanity have a historical perspective and have chosen to become what they are. That choice cannot be undone. At least, maybe, I think.
Straight up and down character-solidification-unto-compatibilistic-freedom?
**************************************
Daniel:
I see THIS as the period in which our choices are made. I see the eschaton as the period in which our choices are actualized.
If you are an LFWer and open theist, the most consistent view in terms of salvation is "post-mortem evangelism" which assumes that character development and choice can take place AFTER THIS LIFE. Greg holds this view...and straight up says that the metaphysical premises of the Free Will Defense REQUIRE it. Ain't that right, y'all?
So if you believe in post-mortem evangelism, then the "probationary period" cannot just be limited to this life. If it's not, then...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/24/2010 11:20:45 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/24/2010 11:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Asher,
One more thing,
Asher: So....how am I going to have FULLNESS of joy...if I have knowledge of irrevocable loss.
Daniel: In every scheme there is irrevocable loss. We can never undo the suffering of Zosia. We can never undo the suffering of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's displaced, killed, or maimed by the recent war. We can never undo the suffering of Rwanda. We can never undo the suffering of the victims of colonial imperialism. That is irrevocable loss. | | Back to Top | | |
| 182 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:23 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|