quote:

---

They are not just things we can skip over, by far

---

Didn't think I was skipping over them, and I still don't see that what you've offered explains much. Looks like it creates further problems. But hey, that's just me. Let me just listen in for a while then. Looks like I've embarrassed myself enough!

quote:

---

Can't do much more to explain. So...in the end, believe what you feel you can.

---

In the end that's what we ALL do. At least on THIS score we're not different at all.

Listening for a while,
Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Edited by - TGB on 09/18/2002 5:43:53 PM

quote:

---

Mephi

I see that we are not going to get away from it. I praise her for basically focusing MORE on our RESPONSE to situations then trying to DECIPHER from whence these situations come (which seems to me basically what's happening).

Iconoclast

If we don’t seek to decipher from whence these situations come how can we design an effective response? How do we learn?

---

quote:

---

Acting out of faith in God as revealed in Christ crucified means acting in the awareness of the radical limitations and liabilities of our knowledge and constantly submitting our understanding to the forgiveness of Christ and renewing, transforming, and empowering call of the Spirit.

---

quote:

---

BJS

If we agree that God does "sacrifice the rook" sometimes to accomplish greater good (not because he wants to, mind you, but because he is FORCED to in this fallen world that we free-willed beings have created) in order to achieve the overall "checkmate," then WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE? WHAT DOES SACRIFICING THE ROOK LOOK LIKE? You all seem to deny even the POSSIBILITY that it could look like Sept. 11 or some other existentially horrifying tragedy, so I guess I need to know what you think CAN qualify as "sacrificing the rook" without it disturbing one's existential comfort level.

Iconoclast

Good question. But just to clarify your position, are you saying that “sacrificing the rook” COULD look like ANYTHING? Is there any limit to what it could look like in your view? If so, what would be an example of that?

thanks,
Iconoclast

---

Iconoclast,

Answering my question with a question! I'm going to have nightmares tonight about being back in law school in the throes of the Socratic method. . .thanks a lot.

First of all, the point underlying your question is well-taken. I understand that it is incredibly unnerving to maintain that we cannot ever know if ANY instance of bad stuff in the world is God "sacrificing the rook." However, I don't see that it can be any other way. If we concede that God is indeed forced to participate in "necessary tragic sacrifice" to accomplish the overall most loving result for humanity, then I don't know how we can remove that possibility from ANY "bad stuff" that we see around us. So, put simply, at this point I would say YES, there is the POSSIBILITY that ANY bad stuff we see in this world COULD be God making the tragic but necessary choice to "sacrifice the rook."

Please understand a couple things about my position here. One, it is in process! [So I AM listening to what you're saying!] Two, remember the distinction between PLAUSIBILITY and POSSIBILITY: I agree that we can make educated suppositions about what is of God and what is not. I just don't think we can state certainties because we are epistemologically limited.

Thanks,

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

quote:

---

I have a question that I hope someone will answer because I am starting to have doubts in the way I am viewing "FAITH." If I were to buy into the view that Iconoclast, Semeia, Tom, Doc ... have regarding God and evil(at least as I understand it), then, in my current belief system, I would have to believe that God's power in our world is limited. From my understanding of this, if God having allowed freewill and God NOT directly being involved in having say so in ANY evil events (except by means of having created freewill agents...), then God is limited in how much He can react and interact in our daily lives since it may interfere with the freewill of agents. What purpose does prayer have if God has chosen and created a world in which He is limited in being able to interact and have influence? We can pray and HOPE but we cannot pray and have FAITH since God is not able to (due to how the world has been set up) allow or NOT allow things to happen. It appears that prayer becomes a matter of "fate" NOT "faith." We can hope that God can work but we CANNOT have faith that God WILL work. We can pray that God will fight on our side (yet I would think we wouldn't have to be praying for God to be on our side since God is FOR us in the first place.) Perhaps this way in looking at God's influence in both good and evil will help explain why some prayers are answered and some are not, and why some people get healed and some don't? MAYBE, God does NOT have as much power as I had thought in answering prayers since God cannot go outside the way he chose to create the law of nature and of freewill? Perhaps my faith was too simple before in that I believed that God COULD answer "yes" "no" or "wait" BUT maybe it's not that he doesn't want to answer "yes" but that He truly can't?

I am starting to ask myself "WHY PRAY"? Well, I guess as a method to communicate with God but certainly not because God can move (unless in rare cases when He goes against the law of creation.) Up to this point I had felt a freedom from the OVT that my prayer actually had more of an impact, since God did not know what the future would hold, and that my prayer could hang in the balance. Now, I am beginning to think that although God doesn't know the future as definite, He also doesn't have a lot of power in it since he created the world with free agents.... I NEED HELP!!!

---

Brandi, this is a very good consideration. I've mentioned it before. This is the answer as I'm understanding it:

At base, it's better to pray than to NOT pray. This because it gives God more of a chance of acting on your behalf than without it. To be sure, this doesn't MEAN that God WILL do anything, but your prayer doesn't count against anything either. It's like putting on a seat beat. It's giving you MORE protection and more of a chance of surviving a wreck than without it. But does it GUARANTEE that you will survive a wreck or NOT come out of a wreck pretty messed up? Nope. There are too many factors involved to say that definitely.

Moreover, the ambiguity thing pops up here too. Just because we pray for something and happen to get it doesn't necessarily MEAN that it was God's direct activity that did it. And if a prayer isn't answered, it doesn't necessarily mean that God said no. It could just be that God couldn't pull it off.

Now, what I get from this is that our ideas about prayer might need to be changed. I did couple of posts on this, actually. If our prayers are going to fully represent the theological position, then it would seem that the prayers would end up being HOPEFULLY EXPECTANT, but not CERTAIN about what God will do.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but if I'm convinced of ANYTHING, it's that lots of ambiguity logically flows from open view theism suppositions, in many areas, INCLUDING divine providence and how prayer works.

Thanks for the question.

Holla,

quote:

---

But this just means that God set up a system where He could be bullied by the enemy into doing evil.

---

Describe..."doing"...evil. It's on that other thread, ya know.

Holla,

quote:

---

What this does not mean is that God was "bullied" by the enemy. What it means is that God had only so many options given the state of reality and the rules.

---

I'm not actually entering cold. I've only read yards and yards of this discussion, on several threads. But I think something is preserved by responding to the face of a thing now and then. (Mirror time.) So...this comment: When you shovel manure, your boots stink.

This discussion is nasty stuff. Shoveling manure (an honorable job--at least when I used to do it) is a noble task. But one's boots stink. So, in the unseemliness of the kinds of things discussed we have to accept many things as necessary for the while.

But let me just shine a mirror on one thing:

quote:

---

"God had only so many options"

---

I'd accept this comment more if it were about 'natural' causes. The world is a dangerous place and people are fragile. That's part of life this side of Eden. No blaming God. Life is for being transfigured by grace. BUT don't put the knife in God's hands.

Those of you who know this discussion better than I, is human "free-will" part of the mix here? I'm not referring to the free will of our creation in God's image. I'm talking about its evil-twin, the will that is slave to sin. No... Put a hold on that... I guess I'm talking about ALL the people in the world, that have been and shall be. That's a wide spread of spiritual conditions.

Is man's particiption, ministering or as parasite, a majro participant here. The acknowledgement of the "Cultural Mandate", even, casts attention on our role. (God didn't create the ball; we did.)

My intuition is that the factor of man's participation and the nature of the world to be in union with Man is a big part of the picture; one that gets ignored in the mechanical models.

See... 9/11 is not over. (As the nun said.) The victory is still playing out in how we love each other, or not. Etc., etc.

I think this is bigger than being pictured.

Thanks for listening.




Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/18/2002 11:27:36 PM

quote:

---

At base, it's better to pray than to NOT pray. This because it gives God more of a chance of acting on your behalf than without it. To be sure, this doesn't MEAN that God WILL do anything, but your prayer doesn't count against anything either. It's like putting on a seat beat. It's giving you MORE protection and more of a chance of surviving a wreck than without it. But does it GUARANTEE that you will survive a wreck or NOT come out of a wreck pretty messed up? Nope. There are too many factors involved to say that definitely.

---

quote:

---

But this just means that God set up a system where He could be bullied by the enemy into doing evil.

---

Describe..."doing"...evil. It's on that other thread, ya know.

Iconoclast

I am using your description in your analogy. The husband (God) choosing to torture his wife in order to prevent his children from being murdered.

This analogy encapsulates the logic that doing evil is not really evil as long as it is in the service of preventing a greater evil. My assertion is that this logic MUST be true in order to sustain the proposition that it is POSSIBLE that any evil we see in the world may be from God rather than a free-will agent acting out of his free will (non-compatibilistically). This logic is however false and therefore when we see Zosia being tortured by a nazi guard we KNOW that this is from a free-will agent acting non-compatibilistically and, of course, totally against God’s will. I see no escape from this logic except to assert either that God does evil or that little girls being tortured is not really evil.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

quote:

---

:::paying a HUGE amount of attention to Doc's response to I. here:::

---

quote:

---

Doc: I'm flattered. But ya'll gonna have to wait. BUSY BUSY week. Don't see any chance for interaction before Monday. I'll just stay, cool stuff.

In his love
Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

---

Greg is stalling people.

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

quote:

---

This analogy encapsulates the logic that doing evil is not really evil as long as it is in the service of preventing a greater evil. My assertion is that this logic MUST be true in order to sustain the proposition that it is POSSIBLE that any evil we see in the world may be from God rather than a free-will agent acting out of his free will (non-compatibilistically).

---

Ok. NOW we are getting into moral theory. Moral justification and all that. You know that, right? Now, it's pretty imperative that we get a clear definition of "evil" Just off the cuff, it seems to me that you (and Semeia) are pretty much virtue ethicists in much of what you say. But this will emerge. How about we REALLY get down on the "evil" stuff now. Trust me, it will mean a LOT to the discussion.

Thanks,

quote:

---

If I were to buy into the view that Iconoclast, Semeia, Tom, Doc ... have regarding God and evil(at least as I understand it), then, in my current belief system, I would have to believe that God's power in our world is limited.

---

quote:

---

I am using your description in your analogy. The husband (God) choosing to torture his wife in order to prevent his children from being murdered.

This analogy encapsulates the logic that doing evil is not really evil as long as it is in the service of preventing a greater evil. My assertion is that this logic MUST be true in order to sustain the proposition that it is POSSIBLE that any evil we see in the world may be from God rather than a free-will agent acting out of his free will (non-compatibilistically). This logic is however false and therefore when we see Zosia being tortured by a nazi guard we KNOW that this is from a free-will agent acting non-compatibilistically and, of course, totally against God’s will. I see no escape from this logic except to assert either that God does evil or that little girls being tortured is not really evil.

---

If we were in a court room and a person was up on the stand for committing some atrocious behavior, but then we found out throughtout the hearings that this person had no other option but to commit this evil as the "lesser of two evils" we would not find him guilty. We would declare him innocent. Sure it was an evil. But it was "the lesser of two EVILS.

This is Greg's contention in his theodicy.

If God could have saved the rook, he would have. He has both the intention/desire and the power to do so. This is not God being "bullied" by Satan. But given the present state of reality that he has set up, that is, the rules and the first thirteen moves, he has to make a necessary "tragic sacrifice". That is, he doesn't fudge the rules because he wants a genuine give and take relationship of love.

But here is a poignant question that I don't think the opposing side has responded to effectively.

If God has not only the intention and desire and the power to save a rook (which is of infinite value even in Greg's chess analogy, remember, he loves it sooo much) out of an very evil incident--why doesn't he?

This is the archilles heel of Greg's theodicy.

What kind of sick freak would not save somebody under said circumstances when they not only wanted to, but had it within their power to do so?

Obviously, God must be some kinda sicko. Again, the archilles heel of Greg's theodicy.






Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Edited by - BBBCanada on 09/19/2002 12:04:55 PM

quote:

---

Hope...faith. Can you do one without the other?

---

Up to this point I would have said "no" but after reading this thread and reflecting I now am thinking "yes." I can "hope" that I will win the lottery but I cannot rest in assurance that I will "with faith" win the lottery. I have always prayed in the past that God WILL answer my prayers with either a "yes," "no," or "wait" BUT now I am beginning to question if God would like to answer my prayer but may NOT be able to due to other factors... This has taken a little bit of my confidence and assurance in my prayers being answered away; yet I have faith and confidence that God is working on our side when we pray even if He is unable to answer the way He would like to. This confidence produces a "hope" in my spirit. The fact that God may NOT be ABLE to answer (even though He would like to) has changed the way I interpret "faith," however, because I cannot rest in assurance that the answer I receive is the answer God had wanted to give... In the end I have the faith that God will work ALL things out for our good.


Tom

quote:

---

I like to think of it not so much in terms of what powers God does or does not possess, but in terms of how much of that power and in what ways God is able to exercise when WE exercise all the power (via prayer) that we possess. All the more reason to pray

---

Are you saying that due to the fact that God is a respecter of persons that He waits for us to give him the permission (through our prayers) to intervene on our behalf? Maybe God waits for us to surrender through prayer before He steps in? If this be the case then I can see how my prayer will make an impact. In a sense I am giving God permission to act on my behalf when I pray.


Tom

quote:

---

I believe that our choice to pray or not is more important to what God's doing in the world than most if not all of what the political button pushers in the United Nations are doing. And until you and I believe our prayers ARE this important to God we simply won't pray and the world will not be what it otherwise could be.

---

So, there is more power in the spiritual than in the physical realm perhaps? Our weapons are NOT carnal but they are powerful in taking down the enemy. I can see the reason we do not wage war with the physical world but with the spiritual. This is making sense!


Tom

quote:

---

Prayer is not a decision to have an impact in the world. The impact is a given. Prayer is a decision to have a positive rather than a negative impact in the world.

---

If my prayer for someone does nothing else but to instill a hope and a trust in God's love for them than I agree with you that we can have a positive impact in the world. Then again, if my prayer opens the door and invites God into the situation then I can REALLY see how my prayer has a positive impact. It makes sense that to pray or not to pray will be a decision on whether I want to make a positive or a negative impact. Thanks!


Al2Si2H4O9

quote:

---

Seems that "free will" in this discussion is a mechanical thing: freedom of opportunity to exercise will. Free externally. but the real issue of freedom is internal. Bound by sin and slave to it, or free to follow one's created nature. Don't confuse these two. Same words; different meaning

---

Yes, the real issue of freedom is INTERNAL. This is making a lot of sense! Flesh can harm, torture, even kill the external but the internal no one can destroy unless we give them the power to do so. We are to guard our hearts because this is where the real battle takes place. We may not always have the freedom externally (we can even be a prisoner) but we have the freedom internally to make a decision to be bound or free.

This world is temporary and the cares of this world will pass away. The internal state of our heart is eternal and this is the part that God is the most concerned with. We cannot base our trust on what we see on the outside but must rather be assured of what is eternal. Our prayers make a huge impact in the eternal realm but may not be as obvious in the external. I am getting it!


Al2Si2H4O9

quote:

---

Be thoughtful and prayerful about which ruts you inherit from others.Choose your spiritual counselors wisely

---

Thank you for your words of encouragement and wisdom. This is why I asked for prayer. I want to follow GOD! I want to understand my Master and learn to walk in His ways.



Thank you for caring and for taking the time to share your insights my brothers!
~Brandi~

quote:

---

But in the third phase couldn’t it be true that because the law is now written on our hearts and because God’s Spirit has been sent to dwell within us that this is a powerful force that keeps us from spiraling down into complete evil?

---

quote:

---

If God could answer prayers as easily as we want him too, why does he? Does he not want to heal/provide/save? He does want to, but there's stuff in the way. And by praying, and doing all the other spiritual warefare stuff (social action, evangelism, loving people etc), we help get the stuff out of the way.

---

quote:

---

I had believed that if someone did not receive a healing it was because God could see things we in the flesh could not see that may be better for that person.

---

quote:

---

Up to this point I would have said "no" but after reading this thread and reflecting I now am thinking "yes." I can "hope" that I will win the lottery but I cannot rest in assurance that I will "with faith" win the lottery. I have always prayed in the past that God WILL answer my prayers with either a "yes," "no," or "wait" BUT now I am beginning to question if God would like to answer my prayer but may NOT be able to due to other factors... This has taken a little bit of my confidence and assurance in my prayers being answered away; yet I have faith and confidence that God is working on our side when we pray even if He is unable to answer the way He would like to. This confidence produces a "hope" in my spirit. The fact that God may NOT be ABLE to answer (even though He would like to) has changed the way I interpret "faith," however, because I cannot rest in assurance that the answer I receive is the answer God had wanted to give... In the end I have the faith that God will work ALL things out for our good.

---

You don't know how much I appreciated you saying this! This is my whole point. With the open view, "faith in God" cannot be just meant to mean that God WILL do what you ask him to do. (And being honest, isn't this what a LOT of people mean by "having faith in God" when talking about asking God for stuff??) It has more to do with faith in God's CHARACTER and OVERALL OPERATION! Regardless of any particular outcome, you KNOW:

1) God was working for the good in the situation
2) Your prayer helped facilitate that
3) God loves you


Now, here's why I think this is so important. I was partially reared in a Charismatic environment where one could not allow oneself to DISBELIEVE in God's ability to bring something about. This was considered operating in "fear, doubt, and unbelief"! And we ALL know that a double-minded person can't expect ANYTHING from the Lord...right? Hmmm...

So, what happened is you had everyone praying some VERY presumptive prayers. Like they had to KNOW that they knew that they knew that God WAS going to do whatever...heal someone, do a financial breakthrough, etc. Because they didn't have the open view, there were certain consequences:

1) Faith in God was ALL about the end result. (Waiting for the manifestation!)
2) If the end result didn't come to pass, it either had to be a product of God's willing OR our lack of faith. Why? Because it was ASSUMED that God could do whatever he wanted and that the only thing that could prevent us from getting blessed was either our request not being God's will OR us not praying enough, not having enough faith.

Of course, this crud gets VERY oppressive. But the prayers were standard. And what I've learned is that prayer not only DEMONSTRATES one's theology, but it reinforces it as well. It was UNTHINKABLE that God could be thwarted by "creational forces"

Ah, but with open view theism, this does become possible. But now, we have to admit something that was unthinkable to us before: We can pray our hearts out, have mountain-moving faith, and God GODSELF could be working full speed for our request...and we still don't receive. Uh, oh. NOW, what do we do? We logically understand that God may not be able to do what we ask for, despite his OWN sincere intentions for that act...but how does this not mean operating in the "fear, doubt, and unbelief" that we've been so conditioned AGAINST?? And then we think, "Well, heck. If prayer is that up in the air, then WHY do it at all?" To me, that's a natural response for people who were brought up in this type of enviroment.

But eventually logic has to prevail. We basically say:

"If it's genuinely possible for tons of prayer to go up to God and God work for it, but the manifestation STILL not come, then WHY should I pray at all?"

But this is just as illogical as this statement:

"If it's genuinely possible for me to die in a car wreck, even IF I have a seat belt on, then WHY should I wear a seat belt at all??"

We see the problem immediately. Putting on the seat belt works more positively, all things considered, then NOT putting on one. Same thing with prayer.

This is why I'm big on the ambiguity created by OVT AND the need to contour our prayers to be consistent with the theology. We must RELOCATE the locus of our "faith in God" when it comes to petitionary prayer. We must take it off the NECESSARY MANIFESTATION of our request and place it on the CHARACTER and OVERALL WORK of God. Can we now see why IN ALL ASPECTS I'm about acknowledging the ambiguity, not trying to worry so much about WHY something does or doesn't happen...and just RESPONDING to God in faith?? That's ALL we can do to deal with the ambiguity. And, I believe, it produces a more mature faith anyways.

So, Brandi, again, I really appreciate your statement. You've got the right idea and the right spirit. I don't think you have much to worry about with respect to your walk with God at all. (I bet you don't either, right, Al? )

Back with that other stuff after while!

Love,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/20/2002 09:26:17 AM

quote:

---

With the open view, "faith in God" cannot be just meant to mean that God WILL do what you ask him to do. (And being honest, isn't this what a LOT of people mean by "having faith in God" when talking about asking God for stuff??) It has more to do with faith in God's CHARACTER and OVERALL OPERATION!

---

quote:

---

Hmmmm. I keep seeing this either/or, which I think is a false either/or: either we have faith OR we attempt to understand our world and the evil and good in it. Why not "faith seeking understanding"? Why must faith in God as revealed in Christ be reduced to ignorance about good and evil? Why cannot we (as I argued earlier) allow "God revealed in Christ" to define good and evil in the world for us? This is messy, confrontational, heart-wrenching, and not always black and white, but I think there’s more integrity (more unity between faith, understanding, and our actions) to it. I just don’t know HOW to act unambiguously regarding that which I admit doubt.

---

It seemed possible to operate in an UNAMBIGUOUS, single-minded manner in the midst of doubt about something. Habit 1 deals with the removing the irritating doubt about the CONTENT by given us a cognitive structure by which to perform SOME operation. SOME level of understanding is provided for the doubt. It's like one being AWARE of how ignorant one is, kinda. And Habit 2 is the OPERATION enabled by the cognitive structure in Habit 1.

So...does this work? Does this show you how you can act UNAMBIGUOUSLY in the midst of ambiguity, Tom? Semeia? Iconoclast? DOC????????

If I'm wrong, hey, it happens!

Holla,