 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Asher/One Love: The Concept of Ownership, Round 3 | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/21/2010 4:04 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Tom: Jeff, couldn't one argue for a relative non-relativism? I mean, couldn't an atheist argue a presentist form of consequentialism that makes the 'pleasure' experienced the basis of ethics?
Jeff: Yes, and I assume that's what that atheist philosopher is meaning. But he knows that the vast majority of humans DON'T mean that when they talk about "right" and "wrong" actions. Most people do hold to some form (however incoherent) of a benevolent theism that grounds the coherence and practicality of the golden rule. Granted, that doesn't mean people are particularly good at living that out. But it does mean that they can be motivated to sacrifice "this-worldly" pleasure for the sake of another if they can be convinced that such a sacrifice IS an instance of the golden rule.
So that atheist is correct, IMO, to admit that he doesn't believe in morality in the conventional sense of that term. But here's the thing: that means he might very well take advantage of people's trust by parading as an angel of light. He might use non-relativistic language to advocate the "propriety" of allowing all points of view to be freely expressed in an academic environment even if his real motive is to aid an agenda of "packing" faculty with intolerant atheists who will never allow theists to be hired, thereafter, etc.
In fact, that kind of thing goes on all the time. That's primarily what the ID movement is about--academic freedom. But even academic freedom is only arguably "better" than the alternative on certain non-relativistic grounds. What theistic society could be convinced that academic freedom is "better" than the alternative if that ultimately meant that our academic institutions should forth-rightly oppose benevolent theism and, therefore, its implications? How could that argument even be made coherently and/or non-arbitrarily?
So it's nice when a few of the atheists in academe just tell us, if only by implication, what they might very well be capable of doing without the least tinge of guilt, given their world view. For there is no reason for me to assume an avowed relativist is ever shooting straight with me unless I have reason to believe that he/she believes it's in his/her "this-worldly" self-interest to do so.
I've debated atheists on forums. Many of them have a great deal of animus against theists, as theists, that shows up clearly every several posts.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/21/2010 3:46:18 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/21/2010 5:08 PM (GMT -6) | | There's another with only going by the pleasure/pain thing, in my mind. Namely that deadly things can be pleasurable and healthy things can be painful. In other words, the pain/pleasure mechanism doesn't have a direct correlation to clear distinction of health-promoting vs health-reducing ideas and behavior. It is relatively easy for a person to experience pleasure in unwise, death-bringing activities, while seeing nothing but pain in wise, life-giving activities. To leave it all to gradations of the pain/pleasure model, I think would really cause problems...namely because it would not be able to handle reality.
Imagine if the health profession (doctors, nurses, etc) worked more on a principle of pleasure promotion/pain reduction than of overall wellness and wholeness promotion /dis-ease and sickness reduction?
As I think about it, it seems like the pleasure/pain thing, evolutionarily speaking, is not just something in and of itself in different animals (including us), but for the "purpose" of the species propagation and promotion. For humans, this would equal to the drive for human survival, health, and flourishing.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/21/2010 4:12:04 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/21/2010 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | No doubt about it, D. It's the fact that sometimes pain is a necessary consequence of causing the means to VALUED ends that we conceive of the idea of "worth it." What post-mortem consequences do is allow us to apply that same idea of "worth it" (or, worded like this: "the suffering of this time are not worthy to be compared...") to the requisite extreme to render the golden rule completely rational in the here and now of "this-worldly" living. It is not a coincidence that virtually all religions posit post-mortem consequences.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/21/2010 7:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Similtude:
What post-mortem consequences do is allow us to apply that same idea of "worth it" (or, worded like this: "the suffering of this time are not worthy to be compared..." ) to the requisite extreme to render the golden rule completely rational in the here and now of "this-worldly" living.
Paul's words...like you pointed out. To me, what's interesting is this: from the perspective of Grace, suffering for the Good (God) is "worth it" not only for post-mortem blessing in the future, but also because human weakness in the "sacrament of the present moment" is an opportunity for divine sufficiency. Grace (God Himself working in us through the Holy Spirit) truly IS sufficient for us! God's Grace transforms and tranfigures our human weakness and suffering into re-presentation of Divine Presence in human existence. The primary examples are Christ crucified and Stephen stoned.
In other words, for the person who loves God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, God's Presence working in, with, and through the human self makes all suffering "worth it" in the Present...and extends from there to the Infinite Future with God. One a person "sees" God and the futility of Creation in and of itself, it becomes completely rational to live this life for God. What else IS there, after all? Think about the message of Ecclesiastes. Here's the end...
Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near of which you will say, “I have no pleasure in them”; before the sun and the light and the moon and the stars are darkened and the clouds return after the rain, in the day when the keepers of the house tremble, and the strong men are bent, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those who look through the windows are dimmed, and the doors on the street are shut—when the sound of the grinding is low, and one rises up at the sound of a bird, and all the daughters of song are brought low— they are afraid also of what is high, and terrors are in the way; the almond tree blossoms, the grasshopper drags itself along, and desire fails, because man is going to his eternal home, and the mourners go about the streets— before the silver cord is snapped, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is shattered at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern, and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher; all is vanity.
Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth.
The words of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings; they are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/21/2010 7:04:07 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/21/2010 10:34 PM (GMT -6) | | |
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.
OR...
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.
Notice, the notion of future accountability is ALWAYS there. Christ endured the shame CONSIDERING the joy set BEFORE him. What is true is that God gives us sufficient power to handle the suffering required to love our neighbor as ourself. That even involves the fact that we can have joy in that suffering, because of our hope, etc.
What is not true, per scripture, is that anyone would succeed in the golden rule or love of God if they really thought the end of this life would be the end of their conscious experience. Human motivation just doesn't work that way. And God DESIGNED human motivation to work the way it actually does. So He works with us accordingly. Indeed, divine benevolence to man is conceived of, by humans, in terms of how human motivation naturally works.
What Christ's death shows us is that even though Christ had the power to go through with it with peace and joy, it was still a suffering of a kind and intensity that caused him to pray that that cup would, IF POSSIBLE, pass from him. It was NOT his preference to do it if it was not necessary to perpetuate his perfectly harmonious relationship with God, with all that entailed (including the joy set before him).
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/21/2010 9:42:20 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/22/2010 8:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Similtude:
What is not true, per scripture, is that anyone would succeed in the golden rule or love of God if they really thought the end of this life would be the end of their conscious experience. Human motivation just doesn't work that way. And God DESIGNED human motivation to work the way it actually does. So He works with us accordingly. Indeed, divine benevolence to man is conceived of, by humans, in terms of how human motivation naturally works.
What Christ's death shows us is that even though Christ had the power to go through with it with peace and joy, it was still a suffering of a kind and intensity that caused him to pray that that cup would, IF POSSIBLE, pass from him. It was NOT his preference to do it if it was not necessary to perpetuate his perfectly harmonious relationship with God, with all that entailed (including the joy set before him).
I'm not disagreeing with you, more than saying the following...
1) If all spiritual creatures are designed with the irrevocable capacity and internal drive to "perceive and enjoy God forever", then it makes sense that "eternity" would be "in their hearts." Meaning the desire for continuous conscious experience with God has indeed been designed into human existence, seen in Jesus as Archetype of humanity. Put that together with the all-too-animal material instinct for life preservation and propogation...and Jesus' resistance to the "cup" makes perfect sense, from a human standpoint of someone who wants to continue enjoying God AND doesn't want to die.
2) The resurrection power which raises us in the FUTURE (The Holy Spirit) is available to us NOW to "give life to our mortal bodies." Yes, there is a "not yet" feature where there is joy set before us, but there is also an "ALREADY" situation where the righteousness, joy, and peace of the resurrection life is open to us RIGHT NOW by the Agency of creation and re-creation, the Spirit of God. This is why the Spirit can be seen as an "inheritance" that inherently comes with a promise of continued existence with God. We get NO MORE or LESS of the Spirit in the future than we have right now: The Spirit is who He is, past, present, and future. It's that we are more OPEN and CONSCIOUS of the various levels of the Spirit's working.
So, even though it's true that suffering for God is made "worth it" by anticipation of future blessing...it's also true that the "joy set before us" SPECIFICALLY DEALS with perceiving and enjoying God forever. That's the "joy" that Jesus was looking forward too, right? The glory he had with the Father BEFORE all the brokeness of Creation? And that "joy" occurs in the PRESENT as well as FUTURE.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/22/2010 7:50:58 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/22/2010 6:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
Here's a question about which I'd like to know what you think.
Jeff: the notion of future accountability is ALWAYS there.
Jeff: What is not true, per scripture, is that anyone would succeed in the golden rule or love of God if they really thought the end of this life would be the end of their conscious experience.
There's actually two separable concepts in your two statements above: 1) future accountability and 2) the end of this life not being the end of conscious experience...obviously number 1 doesn't happen if number 2 doesn't happen...but what if, as some atheist materialists futurists envision, a version of number 2 could happen. What if, future cyborg technology allowed the transfer of the brain to a complete cyborg body. (Maybe it's not that far off, they are working with a cyborg arm in Italy for a man who has lost his, they don't keep it attached to his nervous system and remaining part of his arm just yet, they only temporarily attach it to his nervous system to tweak it and conduct experiments for now) This isn't life after death per se, but it definitely changes what life means if life doesn't have to end because of human bodies wearing out.
So, your main point, is it more a function of there being future accountability, a Judge? Or would we be moving in the direction of what you are talking about if we rendered inevitable death, not inevitable? If apart from really severe accidents to cyborg bodies, and intentional killing of a person...everyone was gonna live forever (or at least a really, really long time)...do you think that would have any effect on people's likelihood to follow the golden rule? Of course, I believe there is a God, who created a moral universe, and everyone has to come to terms with the moral nature of reality, either now or after death...as you say, it's the only thing that makes non-relativistic ethics possible. And as far as I'm concerned, my expansion of Hoppe's ideas gives us the bead on what the nature of those non-relativistic ethics are, at least in this life with the limited knowledge we have at our disposal. So, if death became something that was extremely rare, and most likely something that happened only as a result of intentional murder or severe accidents...could you envision anything like a fully libertarian society encompassing all humanity? Iceland was basically libertarian within it's confines for about a thousand years, Ireland was basically libertarian for about 500 years or so, many Scandinavian communities were basically libertarian (again, within their confines...i.e. they didn't externalize their libertarian values to other societies), the Old West had a short run at a more libertarian way of life, Rhode Island is another example. So, given these fits and starts at a libertarian society, and now with libertarian theory farther advanced in integrated coherence than at any time in the past...if death was diminished, do you realistically think a libertarian society could function humanity wide?
A related question: because the idea was brought up to me before by an agnostic friend of mine...If it became pretty much accepted that their was no God (yeah, yeah, I also had to lay aside how exactly that SOFA came about), but life was extended to indefiniteness...would I want to live forever, if there was no God? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/22/2010 8:39 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Asher: So, given these fits and starts at a libertarian society, and now with libertarian theory farther advanced in integrated coherence than at any time in the past...if death was diminished, do you realistically think a libertarian society could function humanity wide?
Jeff: I doubt it. There are different ways to think about why that would be. First of all, I think our experience basically confirms the prinicple that "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." All it takes for that to be true, as far as I can tell, is that:
1) humans are born with one or more weaknesses (that render bona-fide human righteousness impossible without the Holy Spirit),
2) human weaknesses are not the same for all people, and
3) humans, nevertheless, have a need for esteem.
These are the seeds of conflict, envy, jealousy, etc.
Second, we have historical trends themselves. So I would be interested in knowing more about the historical cases of libertarianism you're talking about. What caused them to fail, etc?
Asher: A related question: because the idea was brought up to me before by an agnostic friend of mine...If it became pretty much accepted that their was no God (yeah, yeah, I also had to lay aside how exactly that SOFA came about), but life was extended to indefiniteness...would I want to live forever, if there was no God?
Jeff: I think plenty of people already do want to live forever whether or not there is a God. I think the more pertinent question is whether they would continue to desire to live forever with the same zeal century after century. I have no compelling reason to believe they would, unless "human nature" changed significantly. What uplifts people apart from religion with hope? -- movies, books, etc that hold forth SOMETHING ideal--something BIGGER than "life."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/23/2010 12:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
I think plenty of people already do want to live forever whether or not there is a God. I think the more pertinent question is whether they would continue to desire to live forever with the same zeal century after century. I have no compelling reason to believe they would, unless "human nature" changed significantly. What uplifts people apart from religion with hope? -- movies, books, etc that hold forth SOMETHING ideal--something BIGGER than "life."
WATCH this, now...
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope, that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
My thought. This "futility" is the void of Creation's own "no-thing-ness" in contrast to Divine Presence via Grace. Creation's no-thingness is always in relationship to God's creatio continua activity as Grace. I love the way Kallistos Ware articulates it in the Orthodox Way: Creation is like a "bridge of diamond" where above it is divine infinitude and below it, it's own nothingness. Sin (and correspondingly death) is when creatures focus more self-referentially own their own nothingness than on God's empowering infinite love via Grace. Expression of this include BOREDOM.
Boredom also plays a role in existentialist thought. In contexts where one is confined, spatially or otherwise, boredom may be met with various religious activities, not because religion would want to associate itself with tedium, but rather, partly because boredom may be taken as the essential human condition, to which God, wisdom, or morality are the ultimate answers. Boredom is in fact taken in this sense by virtually all existentialist philosophers as well as by Schopenhauer. Heidegger wrote about boredom in two texts available in English, in the 1929/30 semester lecture course The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics, and again in the essay What is Metaphysics? published in the same year. In the lecture, Heidegger included about 100 pages on boredom, probably the most extensive philosophical treatment ever of the subject. He focused on waiting at train stations in particular as a major context of boredom. In Kierkegaard's remark in Either/Or, that "patience cannot be depicted" visually, there is a sense that any immediate moment of life may be fundamentally tedious. Blaise Pascal in the Pensées discusses the human condition in saying "we seek rest in a struggle against some obstacles. And when we have overcome these, rest proves unbearable because of the boredom it produces", and later states that "only an infinite and immutable object – that is, God himself – can fill this infinite abyss."
Without stimulus or focus, the individual is confronted with nothingness, the meaninglessness of existence, and experiences existential anxiety. Heidegger states this idea nicely: "Profound boredom, drifting here and there in the abysses of our existence like a muffling fog, removes all things and men and oneself along with it into a remarkable indifference. This boredom reveals being as a whole." Arthur Schopenhauer used the existence of boredom in an attempt to prove the vanity of human existence, stating, "...for if life, in the desire for which our essence and existence consists, possessed in itself a positive value and real content, there would be no such thing as boredom: mere existence would fulfil and satisfy us."
Loder also this WELL in his books: Boredom as expression of the "Void."
Think about it: Could boredom even co-exist with constant participation with Uncreated, Unbounded Presence of Life, Love, and Beauty?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/23/2010 11:19:04 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/23/2010 12:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Subjected to Futility in Hope, Part 1
Subjected to Futility in Hope, Part 2
Side stuff.
In Part 1, he says...
The second law of thermal dynamics, sometimes called "entropy" – that the universe is running down, that it has a built-in tendency now to disorder – is not a natural quirk or accident. It is part of God's decree. Since the fall, futility is built into the universe.
It is amazing how many Christians are so desperate to remove God from the suffering in the world that they are willing to become "deists" in order to keep God out of the equation. A deist was a person who thought of the universe as created by God and then set apart like a clock to tick on its own with no divine interference. Everything was explained in terms of merely natural laws, not divine decrees.
The saints of God have not gotten comfort from that vision. It is not a biblical vision. The biblical vision is given in verse 20: "The creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope." The miserable condition of the world today – its futility and corruption and groaning – are owing to the judicial decree of God in response to sin.
I AGREE with Piper that the futility of Creation is part of divine intention for Creation...and as such is "built into the universe."
I disagree with Piper that God's decree for this was grounded fundamentally as a response to Adam's sin. (I do believe that adamic sin would ground human socialization and enculturation into futile, fallen thinking and experience...and it's harmful effects on human perception and use of nature.) I believe that the futility of Creation is the God-intended "birth-chamber" or "chrysalis" for resurrected new being...that is ultimately grounded in Creation's no-thing-ness itself. Only human beings can bring the universe's no-thingness and meaninglessness into true hypostatic being via loving, worshipful articulation of creaturely gratitude to the Ever-Present Creator.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/23/2010 11:37:46 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/23/2010 8:58 PM (GMT -6) | | | This discussion gets us back to the old one of whether creation is such that sin is inevitable. Because to me, that doesn't even make sense. Sin, by definition, can't be inevitable if God is competent and benevolent in His teleological activity.
So, for me,
1) the Fall truly is the cause of the current inevitability of sin, but
2) the Fall itself was not inevitable.
Would there have been suffering apart from a Fall? Of course. But I suspect that suffering would have been such that it would be educational--i.e., it would have been informative as to how to proceed in a way where humans could readily "get it." Now, there are kinds of suffering that really do seem to be futile in the sense that we can't see any particular benevolent "ends" that it serves in the way we can understand particular benevolent "ends" for basic nervous-system pain, e.g.
But if UR is true, there is always the case that the very REASON why the Fallen world is being prolonged is because it allows for more people to get in on the ultimate benevolence. And the reason why it is prolonged in a FALLEN state may be because it makes no sense for those who have already sinned to live in a sans-Fall SOFA, since maybe the whole point of the sans-FALL SOFA was to provide the conditions necessary for people to live sinlessly, albeit with certain amounts of suffering.
In that sense, a perfectly sympathetic God would suffer from even a non-Fallen creation. But a non-Fallen SOFA would not have necessitated the degrees of divine suffering as the passion of Christ, etc. Regardless, where sin abounds, grace much more abounds, because that is God's way of rendering creation WORTH it no matter what.
Thus, I CAN see that the satisfaction derived from the harmonious relationships of the persons of the godhead is unsurpassable. But I CAN NOT see that God's satisfaction, per se, except sans creation, is unsurpassable. To me, half the biblical language becomes non-sense if that is true (not to mention that "love" of God would have to mean something different than "love" of neighbor, since "love" of God would not affect His sentient state positively, at all).
But that is irrelevant to the competency of God. All that is necessary to render God ultimately competent is that the creational project is ultimately worth it to the godhead, whatever suffering it involved in the finite, short run. And all that is necessary to render God ultimately benevolent is that the creational project is ultimately such that creatures are ultimately glad they were created and exist.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/23/2010 8:37:29 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 11/27/2010 10:00 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 189 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:03 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 |
|
|