quote:

---

You [Greg] said that it is POSSIBLE that there can be a SELF-DETERMINED compatibilism, such that a person can so solidify their character to the point that, in a given situation, it is CERTAIN that they WILL take a given action. And as long as said person was responsible for their self-solidification, they could be held morally responsible for their COMPATIBILISTIC action taken later.

---

quote:

---

Tim: Have a look at Revelation 18 & 19. Recognise anything? Just a thought...

---

quote:

---

Brandon, I'm on AOL right now. Holla! ;)

---

quote:

---

Doc: The analogy that I think would fit more is, your opponent IS GOING to take your rook or queen – so he let him take your rook, and maybe even "sucker" him into doing so. Still, you HATE loosing your rook. To apply to your analogy, IF the situation is that houses A, B, or C ARE going to be set on fire by this pyromaniac, and A and B are orphanages with 100 kids in them, while house C has only three people in it, you are not a conspirator for using your "say-so" to sacrifice C instead of A or B.

---

quote:

---

4) God faciliated 9/11 in the sense that planted the idea in the terrorists mind, the desire in the terrorists’ heart, and it would not have happened just the way it did were it not for him. He did this because he perhaps wanted to punish America, or just "glorify himself." If a person asserts this, I don’t know what Christ’s revelation of God means to them, what his teaching against speculating against divine punishments means to them,what talk about his "glory" means to them, or even what talk about the holiness of God verses the evil of the devil means to them.

Meph, Are you advocating possibility #4?

---

Doc, this option as described is, I believe, WAY too reductionistic. But for the sake of simplicity, fine, yes, it was POSSIBLE for a "greater good" that WE cannot understand. Can you KNOCK the possibility??

*********************************

Doc:

quote:

---

If a person asserts this, I don’t know what Christ’s revelation of God means to them, what his teaching against speculating against divine punishments means to them,what talk about his "glory" means to them, or even what talk about the holiness of God verses the evil of the devil means to them.

---

I've made my stance on ALL of these very clear in my posts before. It's not that hard to do at all. But I've GOT to deal with this one because I feel that it's being overused.

Luke 13:1-5
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them-- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Ok. This is what I'm getting from this: these particular incidents of death were NOT divine judgment on sin. So how in the world is this getting UNIVERSALIZED to the point that NO incident of death that looks like an accident or malicious intent from free-willed beings is divine judgment. Come on, people. The point is this: "Forget your speculation on why THEY died. YOU'D better think about your OWN soul, because YOU are still alive. Repent." That seems like Jesus' basic jist...NOT what you guys are saying. You all know good and well that this particular piece of Scripture has NO universalizing basis, as far as the concept of divine providence. So why are y'all trying to do that?

*********************************

Doc:

quote:

---

I can tell you why Peter was allowed to be "squeezed." I can’t begin to imagine why a soldier would be "squeezed" by God in this fashion. I can therefore only respond by saying, "I have no reason to think this happened, or even any conception of what it would look like for this to happen." I can only say, and in the light of God’s revelation, HAVE to say, "this is diabolical evil and God hates it." And honestly, I worry about the idea of "protecting the sovereignty of God" by backing off of this unequivocal stance.

---

2 points:

1) Just because YOU can't begin to imagine why it would happen doesn't mean that God cannot. PERHAPS God has a larger imagination than you OR me, yes?

2) Saying that God hates evil is NOT THE POINT, as Brandon keeps bringing out.


*********************************

Brandon is tracking perfectly!

quote:

---

I don't think anyone here is questioning that God hates losing a rook. Heck, he knows when a sparrow falls. What they are questioning is, if he hates it soooo much, why doesn't he override it? The answer is because of "certain conditions." Meaning the rules, i.e. irrevocable love, etc. BUT...as Meph Man says,

"... one cannot in principle say when it IS or ISN'T used."

SO THAT, (with finger raised in air, like Doc from "Back to the Future")

"In either case, this gives God a VERY HIGH level of divine providential power that makes the problem of evil almost unbearable."

---

**********************************

Bottom line: We STILL don't seem to be touching the MAIN POINTS that I'm raising. I just hearing a lot of "I can't reconcile this with MY view of Jesus hating and combatting evil", which, as Brandon and I've said before, is continually MISSING THE POINT.


Holla,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/11/2002 11:02:12 AM

quote:

---

Question for you Meph: are you suggesting that God conspires to commit criminal acts?

Or are you simply suggesting that sometimes God causes us pain in order to heal us, like a doctor setting a broken bone? If so, are you suggesting that there is some plausibility that September 11 is analogous to a doctor setting a broken bone? If so, how do you reconcile Jesus words regarding the 18 people killed by the Tower of Siloam? Or did the Tower of Siloam just fall due to lousy engineering choices? And did September 11 happen because some folks decided to take vengeance into their own hands against God’s very strongly stated word against that sort of thing?

Also, if a person decides to have a child knowing full well that the child has free choice and may choose to do things that are self-destructive, is that person responsible for the self-destructive things the child does? If so, how? And should they be held accountable for it?

---

I am saying that IF some person A uses another person B (who is SO SELF-DETERMINED that a type of compatibilism results in certain situations) AS MEANS TO AN END, then it is reasonable to say that person A bears significant RESPONSIBILITY for what person B has done. That's all I was intending to say.

And the "having a child" analogy is DIFFERENT from the concept I was discussing. By leaps and bounds.


Holla,

quote:

---

OK. Greg. But this same God who HATES losing his rooks could break the rules to not only save A,B, and C, but He can even stop the pyromaniac from carrying out his evil deed! How? By overriding the pyro's will. Really, it doesn't even matter what happened in the first 13 moves.

---

quote:

---

God cannot be love without being just. And God cannot be just without being a judge, which sometimes means harsh judgment.

---

quote:

---

All right, this is coming from someone who believes in open theism and the spiritual warfare model of theodicy: I think many are overstating the existential assurance that can be given through these views. With Meph and Brandon, I must agree that we CANNOT EVER KNOW with certainty that a certain instance of "bad stuff" is not God-ordained. Semeia simply cannot confirm that "God could not have been part of a moment [like 9/11]." Sure, we would love to think that the universe of actions and events is that neatly categorized, but as we have belabored time and again on this board (think OT slaughters), there is some pretty disturbing stuff that God has been in on. The understanding of this stuff that I have heard from Doc and others is that this can all be understood in the context of the greater war. That is, God may take "lesser evil" actions in order to achieve "greater goods." It's a messy world, right? Well, to me it's no less messy now, whether it's 9/11/2001 or 9/11/2002.

ALL WE CAN KNOW IS THAT EVIL WAS NOT PART OF GOD’S ORIGINAL PLAN FOR THE UNIVERSE, AND THAT HE IS THEREFORE NOT ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, EVEN WHEN HE IS FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN LESSER EVILS FOR GREATER GOODS.

That’s it, folks. No more certainty than that.

---

Simple, yet effective. I love it. Thanks AGAIN, Brett. Good show!

quote:

---

I'm going to say in very small letters that I've always been seeing the attention placed on God and what God can or can't do, so as to be fair. I'm becoming of a mind to consider strongly that this attention is actually rooted in a defective and unbiblical anthropology. More another time.

---

Has the true nature of man been so undervalued that it warps consideration of God.

Think about it!

quote:

---

Question for you Meph: are you suggesting that God conspires to commit criminal acts?

Or are you simply suggesting that sometimes God causes us pain in order to heal us, like a doctor setting a broken bone? If so, are you suggesting that there is some plausibility that September 11 is analogous to a doctor setting a broken bone?

---

This is no different than what I stated on the "Ethics Thread" and I feel I must quote the whole post.

quote:

---

OK. How 'bout this one? What about "Double Effect?" That is, in cases of ethical conflict where it appears that a given action will produce two effects, one desirable and one undesirable, it may be permissable to perform the action as long as the undesirable effect is not directly intended. (Got that from a book, you know I'm not that good, ). We do this all the time in real life situations, self-defense, giving surgery to the mother to save her life even though we know the fetus will die.

So, for an example, when we have God command young children to be slain. The effect was both undesirable and horrible, though it arose from an action that was right itself--the destruction of a society that was drowning in idolatry that it was irredeemable Deut 20:16-18. If God's people were living in trustful obedience to God, we can assume that such actions were not sinful, though the carnage that occurred resulted from the sinful condition of humanity.

While we may not endorse every aspect of "Double Effect" today, could we not at least say that something like it does seem to have divine approval?

---

Basically, we are all "seeing" the broken bone being set. We're all seeing the killing of a fetus. We're all seeing the burgular being cracked over the head with a Louisville baseball bat. We're all seeing little children being slain. If we don't see the bigger picture (and how could we from our "on the ground" perspective and the size of our brains which is about the size of a sheep, please understand the analogy ), that is intent, etc, then we will more often than not say, "This is evil. This is, baaaaad. This is Satan. This is of the devil." And like little children we will question our Heavenly Father's care and concern for us.

Come to think of it, I think the analogy that Icon uses is very apropos. For isn't Jesus, the Great Physician? The Healer of our Souls and Creation?

What this means, is this. We cannot know for sure or with certainty which "undesirable effect" is judgment from God and which is from Satan. Therefore, it is of no use to speculate which is which. All we can say is this, "It is possible that this was from Satan, but it could also be from God. We can never know." This, to me, seems to be a more balanced theodicy.

Evil is:

A) From Satan.
B) From Man.

"Evil" (notice the quotes and highlight) is:

A) From God.

Basically, in effect, coming to terms with "judgment" is what started this for me. As Meph says, can't we say that judgment is even a possibility??? Hypothetically speaking, even Greg admits this.


2. Just to reiterate how ambiguous things can really be, (I wish I could find it and if anyone can, dig it up for me, pleeease!! Thank you, thank you.), Greg said something like this not to long ago on another thread,

"I don't know if this was Satan, or God or me"

within context of "attacks on his church I think. Hmmm...is this ambiguous or what? I thought that statement was kinda outta whack. When it all comes down to "street talk" we all say what we really think...and believe.

3. The moment one admits that God can unilaterally override freewill, one has dug their own theological grave. So when might-be-don asks,

quote:

---

I would think God doesn't have to mess with the pyro's will at all, he just needs to block his way.

---

I say, "Same diff." Or as Meph Man use to say, "Cheeeeccckmate!!"


4. Lastly, when we see an "undesirable effect", this in no way implies that Satan was not involved as I have said above! By golly no! It is true as Greg points out,

quote:

---

"...that the rook would have been spared if it could have been spared."

---

I don't think that Meph is saying this isn't possible. Again, God is at war with his opponent and sometimes people get caught in the "crossfire" even when God acts unilaterally.

Would you agree with this last statement Meph? I ask this question, because it seems to me that if God does in fact override freewill, (which everyone here seems to be admitting), why would we end up with a 9/11 other than it being God's judgment?

P.S. Daddy. In your own poignant way, I agree with you. These presuppositions to me, seem to be fueling much of Greg and Co. views on "judging".





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 09/11/2002 7:03:44 PM

quote:

---

4) God faciliated 9/11 in the sense that he planted the idea in the terrorists mind, the desire in the terrorists’ heart, and it would not have happened just the way it did were it not for him. He did this because he perhaps wanted to punish America, or just "glorify himself." If a person asserts this, I don’t know what Christ’s revelation of God means to them, what his teaching against speculating against divine punishments means to them,what talk about his "glory" means to them, or even what talk about the holiness of God verses the evil of the devil means to them.
Meph, Are you advocating possibility #4?

---

quote:

---

I don’t see September 11 as a broken bone being set. I see it as free-will beings choosing to do evil. I don’t see Auschwitz as a broken bone being set. I see it as free-will being choosing to do evil.

---