 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/18/2011 12:53 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/18/2011 1:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Hint:
"The King will answer them, 'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' "
Corresponsively...
"Then he will answer them, saying, 'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.' "
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/18/2011 1:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Another Hint:
Imagine God experiencing all creaturely suffering like John Coffey from "The Green Mile".
I'm assumin' y'all have seen this...
Paul asks John what he should do, if he should open the door and let John walk away. John tells him that he is ready to die because here there is too much pain in the world, which he is aware of and sensitive to, stating that he is "rightly tired of the pain" and is ready to rest.
Basically, imagine God perfectly empathizing with each unique instantiation of creaturely suffering that exists, willed or unwilled...without the ability to die. Imagine the Spiritual Presence of Jesus in all humanity REALLY being "aware of and sensitive to" the joys and pains of human beings like ol' John Coffey there.
Doesn't sound too far fetched, now, does it?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 1/18/2011 12:20:00 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/18/2011 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Quoting:
At the hanging of the angel-faced pipel, Wiesel had an answer, when someone asked, `` `Where is God now?' And I heard a voice within me answer him: `Where is He? Here He is-He is hanging here on this gallows...' '' ([Night], 62)
I think that, in a way, Elie Wiesel was more accurate then even he knew.
Anyways...here's my thought...Tom's already seen this...
Long story short, let us say that it is an inherent feature of Love takes on the joys and sorrows of the other as their own. (This would be Empathetic Joy and Compassion) For the loving person, who's life is in the Other, the joy of the other is the joy of the self...and, corresponsively, the sorrow of the other is the sorrow of the self. In other words, empathy is inherent in genuine love. Now, if the Uncreated "Tri-Hypostatic Person" (I like that) IS Love, then God will be absolutely empathetic with Creation's joys and sorrows, taking them on as his own. Whatever pains happen to Creation (meaning human beings), God directly and immediately, takes that joy and sorrow on as his own via his perfect empathy with humanity. The Incarnate Word is the absolute demonstration of this identifying and sharing dimension of love.
So, how does this work for things like OT Violence, the Holocaust, and the like. Basically, God has perfect empathy with all creaturely suffering. I'd say this is an aspect of "greiving the Holy Spirit." So when God told his people to slaughter others, this would be in full knowledge of all of the intending empathetic suffering upon Godself this would necessitate. And God was willing to do this, because of God's original intention to "empathize" with Creation iteself. In the Cross, God "takes responsibility" for all human suffering. Such that if anyone has beef with God about any human suffering, they can know two things:
1) God feels the depth of suffering in any evil events far more than we do. We cannot begin to fathom the depth of empathetic pain that God experiences in our human sinfulness.
and...
2) Any justification that creatures thinks that God may "owe" them because of their experience of the Void by being "thrust into Creation" as it were...God "took responsibility" for that CONCRETELY and PERSONALLY by Divine Experience of "Void" in the Cross of Jesus. I actually think Jesus did examples this. He understood himself in terms of Isaiah 53, right? Jesus went to the Cross with this self-understanding at the center, right? So...any human wrath that creatures could have towards God about how he does things has already been expressed through Jesus's suffering life and passion.
"He bore the sin of many (all)"
In short...God always "bears" our sin (and the effects of our sin) via divine empathy. At the same time, God is able to bear such unspeakable suffering by the divine apatheia grounded in the unsurpassably intense perichoretic intimacy of God's one tri-hypostatic being. I would say that this is imaged in Creation by Christ's loving self-giving to the Father on the Cross (and the Father's subsequent exaltation of Christ) in the power of the Holy Spirit.
So...
Whenever human suffering from nature, evil, and/or divine judgement happens and God says "This is gonna hurt me way more than it's gonna hurt you, children", God's telling the absolute truth.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 1/18/2011 12:51:25 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/18/2011 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | I think Greg's coming to the same conclusion. Listen to this.
Listen ESPECIALLY to the section between 14:00 and 17:00. It's right there.
(Here for the video)
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/18/2011 2:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Well, first, I was hoping you'd say something about the two-storied universe idea. God present in the sufferings of his creation. The other thing that comes to mind is the talk we had a long time ago on God's aseity in which God experiences suffering but doesn't really affect Godself. Christians and people in general want a God who says, "I feel your pain." And that seemed to be contrary to what you are putting forth here. I've actually been meaning to read those discussions again.
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 1/18/2011 2:07 PM (GMT -6) | | | Kinda like what you say in this thread: I thought that I said that relative to the satisfaction that God already experiences, every other beautiful experience God has is relatively meaningless.
How does this level of evil affect God whom is completely satisfied?
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 1/18/2011 2:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Well, first, I was hoping you'd say something about the two-storied universe idea. God present in the sufferings of his creation. The other thing that comes to mind is the talk we had a long time ago on God's aseity in which God experiences suffering but doesn't really affect Godself. Christians and people in general want a God who says, "I feel your pain." And that seemed to be contrary to what you are putting forth here. I've actually been meaning to read those discussions again.
It's like this: God's equanimity/apatheia (generated by the unsurpassably intense intra-trinitarian loving intimacy) gives him the STRENGTH to bear the burdens of Creation...just like human equanimity (generated by the ever-growing-intensity of loving intimacy with God) gives it the strength to bear the burdens of God, that is in bearing the burdens of their fellow humans to whom God is empathetically tied. Love of God is truly love of the neighbor and self. Can't do one without the other.
I LOVE these definitions of equanimity...
"When we abide in presence, it is natural for us as human beings to feel expansive and open in our hearts. We are touched and affected by our experiences, often in profound ways, but we are not lost or swept away by our emotional reactions. We are compassionately connected with truth, and this supports us in our ability to remain present even to potentially painful experiences or realizations. Equanimity gives us tremendous support for our soul's capacity to be touched and transformed by the events of our lives, both grand and subtle. This gives healthy Fours the ability to embrace life without being so "storm-tossed" by every feeling. Even negative experiences can be made into something positive, and they find peace in knowing that the soul is able to transform every experience into something worthwhile and valuable. "
and...
“The real meaning of upekkha is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the 'divine abodes': boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and consummates them.”
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 1/18/2011 1:11:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/18/2011 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
I thought that I said that relative to the satisfaction that God already experiences, every other beautiful experience God has is relatively meaningless.
Dude, this is just like how the Christian is to relate to the love, joy, and peace in God's indwelling presence. Such that every other earthly satisfaction (or lack thereof) is RELATIVIZED INTO MEANINGLESSNESS with respect to that indwelling, uncreated power.
Right?
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us."
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 1/18/2011 1:15:39 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/18/2011 2:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | "When we abide in presence, it is natural for us as human beings to feel expansive and open in our hearts.
Kinda reminds me of when I asked you guys how I should respond to people on my bus sometime ago. Even last night, when I was at work, I started praying about how much my attitude SUCKS on the job at times. I get tired of the stupid questions that people ask me. How their tardy with times. I mean after a while you need a break just to recoupe. But last night I asked for God's mercy. For his love. For his strenght. To treat others with God given respect and dignity that they deserve. And that is the very thing that starts happening! It's like I've always heard in sermons, "Its hard to pray and be angry with your spouse (or whoever) at the same time."
Also, check this article by Kyle Bennett out. Kyle teaches at Azuza Pacific. Here is what I wrote in response to Kyle on his facebook page.
Hmmm...I like the direction this is going in, but still wonder if it is distinctly Pentecostal enough. Indeed sometimes I wonder if Pentecostals are Pentecostal enough! For example, you wrote: “This other layer is **God's presence IN creation,** and in particular, his action within it. We need a Christian civility that is informed by a thorough sensitivity to the **Spirit's presence** and work **IN** the mundane of creation, including our civil encounters.” You also said, “The challenge Smith presents for us is that this expectation, this "eye" for the "surprise" of the **Spirit in creation,** is not just a characteristic of a Pentecostal worldview in particular, but a Christian one in general. Another is, “A Christian civility, then, in light of Smith's challenge, would take note of the **Spirit's presence** and work in all aspects and rhythms of creation, **including civil encounters.**
It seems to me that a truly Pentecostal encounter of the Spirit would look more Eastern Orthodox in nature in which there is no “two-storied” understanding of reality but God through his “energies” exists not only within his very creatures (Matt 25:40) but truly in “all aspects and rhythms of creation, including civil encounters.” IOW, there is an a priori assumption of the permeation of the Spirit in and through creation which grounds creation and creational activity ie., civil encounters.
And of course, Jesus said, "When you have done it to the least of these, my brethren, you have done it TO ME."
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 1/18/2011 3:20 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I have that book. I think I bought it after you mentioned it a long time ago. I said to myself, "Hey, I'm gonna watch for these books that Dwayne is reading and get them as well." 
Anyhoo...I was thinking, I like your definitions of equanimity and I understand them. That that's what God would be in Godself. However, I still find the response somewhat wonting. For example, just from the logic of it all. If God is THAT satisfied within God's self, the question still stands, "How does this level of evil affect God whom is completely satisfied?" For example, in the example you used, (24hour-orgasm, and one in an earlier thread about tasting ice cream), you said this:
If a person is experiencing an all-over 24-hour orgasm, an experience that is UNSURPASSABLY PLEASURABLE...such that her drive for pleasure is completely satisfied. What would it matter--speaking of increasing the persons level of pleasure--if this person also got a relaxing back massage at the same time she is experiencing the orgasm?
Would the back massage actually add ANY REAL CONTENT to the experience of pleasure that the person has, relative to the SATISFACTION created by the pleasure?
Nope.
Could the person STILL FEEL and APPRECIATE the back massage?
Yes.
I know I said something like this before.
Well, it would be the opposite of pleasure against pleasure. Instead, it would be that with all that pleasure, how can we say in any genuine sense that God is emphatic to the groanings of creation? Pleasure against pain. Can God in himself genuinely be emphatice to Wiesel's pain? Is not God in some sense anesthetized to this level of evil?
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 1/18/2011 6:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Anyhoo...I was thinking, I like your definitions of equanimity and I understand them. That that's what God would be in Godself. However, I still find the response somewhat wonting. For example, just from the logic of it all. If God is THAT satisfied within God's self, the question still stands, "How does this level of evil affect God whom is completely satisfied?"
1) God is like that...period. Both ad intra and ad extra.
2) The question is this: Can a person who is completely fulfilled and satisfied in love genuinely feel the suffering of others as their own? I would say yes because that is inherent to what love is and does.
As far as my 24-hour orgasm idea, I was trying to convey the true sense in which God is in infinite, absolute satisfaction in God's own self without any Creation existing, such that there is no need for a God-world relationship to fulfill God. I still believe that. Unless a person wants to say that God needed Creation to experience complete satisfaction, we'd have to affirm this. Creation is relatively meaningless to God in so far as God could have been just as well without it. At the same time, insofar as Love does what it does with "others" that come to be, God would be "compelled" by his ecstatic, self-giving love to exhibit empathy with His Creation.
Example: You could have existed just fine in your love for God without your daughter, Brandon. You wouldn't have needed her to be a full person in God. But now that she exists, you STILL can be just fine in your love for God. At the same time, your love for God and youself "binds" you in love to your daughter. As much as possible for you, her pains and joys will be yours...even if she didn't feel the same about you. That's just how it works. Right?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/19/2011 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | |
D: Creation is relatively meaningless to God in so far as God could have been just as well without it.
Brandon: But what doesn’t seem to quite fit with the analogy is that if God could have been just as well without it, then God can be just as well with it. In other words, when you say, “could have been just as well” that applies both ways with or without creation. IOW, if God is completely satisfied if creation did not exist, then he is just as satisfied even with the state that it is in (as you say I am with my daughter). Love will expand outward towards others in pain, but its hard to imagine someone in complete satisfaction FEELING GENUINE empathy at the core of their being. Bringing up your analogy above. Could there be any REAL CONTENT to empathy in the same way that the back massage adds to the satisfaction of the 24hr-orgasm?
I like your analogy about my daughter. But you say, “ As much as possible for you, her pains and joys will be yours...even if she didn't feel the same about you.”
Two dictionary definitions of empathy are:
the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, a vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner
and
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
So it seems that there is a level of identification to the object of empathy but not in such a way as to blur the distinction of identity between the person objectifying and the person being objectified. This is done vicariously. That is, it is done through felt or imagined participation. But then again, we do have the cross in which God does “enter in” not in an imaginative way, but right into the fray of things.
I was thinking last week that I have a hard enough time, emotionally, dealing with my own set problems. Just daily things. I couldn’t imagine “taking on” the problems of the world. That would be way too much weight for me to carry. I’d break under it. And even though Mother Teresa was able to bear much weight in the poor of Calcutta, she can only “go so far” in empathy with them. She can’t wholly identify in the sense of “becoming” them such as to genuinely identify with them. In your definitions above you say:
“We are touched and affected by our experiences, often in profound ways, but we are not lost or swept away by our emotional reactions."
Again, you can only go so far, in identification with someone (you are affected in profound ways, yes). In order to completely identify with someone would you not have to actually be that person? And if that’s the case then its hard to imagine that anything less than that would be genuine empathy.
Just thought of this. Think of it like this.
A biologically normal person feels that they may actually belong to the opposite sex. They seek to get a sex-change in order to make their outer body conform to their “true inner self.” Now, this should be problematic for the Christian as one’s identification of itself is integrally wrapped up in who they are physically. A person’s identity is not located in one part, ie., the soul or the body such that it is, from a Christian perspective (traditionally), impossible to separate the “who” of from what sex they are. The two go together. That is, it is embodied persons and not mere bodies who are male and female. Thus, the idea that we are men trapped in women’s bodies or women trapped in men’s bodies collapses the distinction between sex and gender which has a disregard for bodily reality. IOW, the body has an important part to play in the identification of who you are.
In the same way, I cannot wholly identify with someone (the opposite sex, the plight of someone) without actually being that person and that’s basically my point. Thus, I can imaginatively or vicariously identify with them but that means “only so far” or to an extent.
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) : 1/19/2011 12:39:03 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/19/2011 3:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Love will expand outward towards others in pain, but its hard to imagine someone in complete satisfaction FEELING GENUINE empathy at the core of their being.
and...
Again, you can only go so far, in identification with someone (you are affected in profound ways, yes). In order to completely identify with someone would you not have to actually be that person? And if that’s the case then its hard to imagine that anything less than that would be genuine empathy.
and...
I cannot wholly identify with someone (the opposite sex, the plight of someone) without actually being that person and that’s basically my point. Thus, I can imaginatively or vicariously identify with them but that means “only so far” or to an extent.
Are you saying that God can only genuinely empathize with us "only so far" because of God's satifaction in God's own unsurpassably intense loving trinitarian self-experience, even including the Incarnation?
Or...
Are you saying that God cannot genuinely empathize with us at all because of God's satifaction in God's own unsurpassably intense loving trinitarian self-experience, even including the Incarnation?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/19/2011 3:08 PM (GMT -6) | | This is what I think about. Just with me personally.
God is on the deepest center of my biological, psychological and spiritual processes. God experiences my ego's activity "from the inside" and "from the outside". God knows all of my unconscious, subconscious, preconscious, and fully conscious thoughts and emotions. Truly, God knows more of the full impacts and consequences of my conscious decision making (for myself and others) than I can ever know. He knows how I hurt when I hide it from myself. He knows how HE hurts about ME hurting, when I hide both facts from myself, because God's always in the center of my personal being. And he does this for every human that exists. Plus, in Jesus, I have assurance that God has had a PERSONAL experience as a human being with human ego activity. He knows that experience from the inside.
Given all this, it would seem that God would have everything needed to be at least the MOST EMPATHETIC BEING POSSIBLE. At least that.
Right?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/19/2011 4:03 PM (GMT -6) | | D: Are you saying that God can only genuinely empathize with us "only so far" because of God's satifaction in God's own unsurpassably intense loving trinitarian self-experience, even including the Incarnation?
Or...
Are you saying that God cannot genuinely empathize with us at all because of God's satifaction in God's own unsurpassably intense loving trinitarian self-experience, even including the Incarnation?
Brandon: I'm trying to reconcile the two strains of thought. God in the incarnation, being empathetic with us with God being completely satisfied. I'm NOT saying that God cannot empathize with us at all given the incarnation. I'm simply wondering or asking or musing out loud that given the Incarnation God can empathize with us but given that God is completely satisfied, how can it be genuine empathy? Let me give another example.
Say we have spherical representation--a ball. Say this ball is NOTHING but COMPLETE JOY, PLEASURE, PURE UNADULTERATED SATISFACTION. It is this in fullness. It radiates these qualities. It doesn't lack these. It's joy tank is full. How does something that is COMPLETE joy 24hr type spiritual orgasm still feel empathy? That's my question. It would essentially be the same as pleasure of a "back massage" relative to the 24hr type orgasm only with regards to feelings of empathy.
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) : 1/19/2011 3:21:14 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/19/2011 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Say we have spherical representation--a ball. Say this ball is NOTHING but COMPLETE JOY, PLEASURE, PURE UNADULTERATED SATISFACTION. It is this in fullness. It radiates these qualities. It doesn't lack these. It's joy tank is full. How does something that is COMPLETE joy 24hr type spiritual orgasm still feel empathy? That's my question.
I've got a better representation. Let's take Tom's "infinite set of numbers" idea. (I might mess it up) Lets say that complete joy, pleasure, and satisfaction <=> infinite set of numbers. Let's also say that discontent, suffering, and dissatisfaction are the subtraction of any finite set of numbers within the infinite set. The subtraction of the finite is "real" within the infinite set, but it doesn't diminish the infinity of the set. The "fullness" of the infinite set cannot be eliminated through the real subtraction. (I think it's fair to say that dissatisfaction is a FINITE concept. It is not uncreated reality.)
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/19/2011 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | I believe that the God's satisfaction in Godself is what GROUNDS God's ability to empathetically "bear our sins". A chaplain I once knew said this, and I never will forget it...
"With-stand...so that you can stand-with."
Basically, only having an ability to "withstand" the emotional dramas of others (via one's own source of fulness), can enable one to truly "stand-with" those others, entering (but not overwhelmed by) their suffering reality. Equanimity.
Also, Greg in "Trinity and Process" says the same thing. Yeah.
This really just makes sense to me...on all levels.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 1/19/2011 3:32:11 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:14 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 |
|
|