quote:

---

This is what gets us the problems that we have. It kinda goes
back to the quantity of live vs quality of life thing. Under the
assumptions that Brett and I are applying, there can be certain cases and
principles where NON-EXISTENCE could be preferred to existence. As such,
there are cases were "loving" beings would have MORAL OBLIGATION to
choose non-existence over existence, when certain circumstances obtain.
For this discussion, Brett and I assume that, if omnibenevolence is
defined in the strict sence, that that being would be MORALLY OBLIGATED
not to create if said being knew that it would be inevitable that at
least ONE sentient being would suffer a particularly heinous fate (ie
eternal separation from God). Thus, love is expressed fundamentally as
being completely for the maximization of EACH POTENTIAL BEINGS state of
well being.


Under the assumptions of Icon and Semeia, it would NEVER be the case that
non-being (death) is preferred to being (life) in the "Life System A"
scenerio. This is because God is FOR life and God IS life. Moreover, God
is the center of of this whole piece. Life (primarily sentient life) has
choices and ramifications INHERENT within it...and one of these choices
is to choose AGAINST life and FOR death. In other words, life WITHOUT the
potential for death is not truly life at all...it is death. Life is, for
us, continually the struggle against the tug of non-being towards God.
Thus love is expressed as promoting LIFE and LIFE affirming paradigms
(which, in their view, may as well be called THEOCENTRIC paradigms)

___________________________________

Let's see if this works. Semeia made THIS statement:


quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
But to answer your question: Yes, I would bring my children into the
world knowing that one of them would be damned, ON ONE CONDITION: that it
was their free choice. Let's say that there was some sort of statistical
probability that led me to believe that it was inevitable that one would
run from God. Why would I deny life to everyone, because some people
choose AGAINST God?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------



From Bretts' and My perspective. It would seem to us like Semeia is
saying that a loving being is NOT MORALLY OBLIGATED to prevent gross and
ultimate evil from inevitably occuring when it is possible to stop...EVEN
at the expense of existence or free will. This seems to go against our
moral sensibilities and deepest intutions on some level.

From Semeia's viewpoint. Semeia is saying that life and the freedom
inherent within is supremely a GIFT, even though the gift is attached
with some necessary losses. However, to live is to both make choices for
or against (and move toward or away from) non-being or death. This just
comes with the territory. This ALSO coheres with our experiences as human
beings who have children.


Now, let's try the other side...


Brett makes this statement:


quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
God WAS FULLY AWARE THAT MANY OF US WOULD REJECT HIM AND BE ETERNALLY
DAMNED, YET HE CREATED US ANYWAY.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------



From Brett's and my perspective. Brett is saying that saying that God is
a loving being has certain moral OBLIGATIONS. Saying that God is
all-loving compounds the issues. For God to have KNOWN that it was
inevitable that some people would experience the most horrible thing
possible in the Christian theistic context (eternal separation from God
in any form)...and create a contingent reality where this obtains...goes
against the moral obligation due a loving being. This would be tacit
evidence that God does NOT exhibit full divine responsive love. A truly
omnibenevolenct God would not create under such circumstances, unless
universalism was the case. A God that DID create under these
circumstances cannot be declared exhaustively "for us"


From Semeia's perspective. She would say saying that if God is for LIFE
and God has given life to us, then we have no basis to say that God is
not exhuastively "for us" She would think it's exactly the opposite. If
God were NOT "for us", then he would have left us in NON-BEING. Moreover,
because the possible choice for death is INHERENT in Imago Dei life
anyway, she may wonder what the big deal is. God's concern is
establishing and PROMOTING life. God wishes for us to choose life and is
genuinely sorry when we don't. But to blame God for this is completely
wrong.

---