quote:

---

What Mephi, Brandon and Brett are saying is completely different. They are saying that sometimes it is God himself causing the terrorists to fly the planes into the buildings.

---

If this is what you got, then you may not have looked closely enough at my discussion on the TYPES of compatibilism on this thread. Ask yourself: isn't it possible that THIS occurred: the idea, concepts, and manpower for the Sept. 11th thing ORIGINATED with the Al Queda network, based upon a solidified character within them...and God COMPATIBILISITICALLY used this solidified character to do something that HE wanted done for "greater good" purposes. This is what is said to have happened with Peter...AND this is OBVIOUSLY what happened with the Babylonian captivity (check out Habbakuk).

I submit that this is VERY possible...and that you would STILL have a problem with this. Remember, I'm only trying to show the AMBIGUITY here.


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

Semeia:

quote:

---

Again, this depends on what you mean by "use the evil." If you mean, in agreement with Mephi, Brandon and Brett that using the evil means actually causing the evil to occur - God bringing about evil that otherwise wouldn't have occurred - I would strongly disagree on the grounds that it goes against the direct revelation of God in Jesus Christ. It in essence says that God sometimes heals by the power of Beelzebub, an accusation of the Pharisees that Jesus strongly rejects

---

and...

quote:

---

As Doc has repeatedly pointed out, it is one thing to say that God “allows” evil to occur, because without freedom there cannot be love, and quite another thing entirely to say that God “authors,” “causes,” or “ordains” evil.

---

Ok. This needs to be made quite clear. God compatibilistically USING "evil" things whose ideas ORIGINATED in free-willed being...in order for God to achieve his "greater good" ends...is what I'm talking about. It would be LIKE UNTO me USING the self-made pyromaniac to achieve the MEANS to a larger GOAL that I want accomplished.


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

The problems caused by EITHER TYPE of compatibilism causes almost insoluable theodicy issues...and open view theism allows for BOTH types.


Holla,



Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/13/2002 5:55:01 PM

quote:

---

BBBCAnada: 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."

IF you can say this with regard to Zosia, you can say it anytime, anywhere, in all situations. And now there is no way to tell God from Satan.

Jesus, thankfully, never entertained this ambiguity.

If the most atrocious evil might be God, then we can never tell friendly fire from enemy fire. Iconoclast said it best: "this is like saying that we can not know when the doctor is setting our broken bone and when Osama Bin is breaking it. Knowing if a specific evil comes from God’s judgement or from evildoers is called Wisdom." The recommendation on the table -- to leave open in each instance that possibility that nightmarish evil is from God -- seems like a recommendation to abandon wisdom.

---

And isn't it fact that this "wisdom" can ultimately ONLY be gained by God REVEALING it to you? This why I state so emphatically the necessity of being attentive to the Spirit. It ENABLES us to used this "wisdom", NOT abandon it.


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

Doc:

quote:

---

I cannot make heads or tails of the suggest that we should come against ALL "evil" AS THOUGH it were from Satan EVEN IF it is actually from God. Evil is EVIL because it is WHAT OUGHT NOT TO BE. It is WRONG. How do you genuine resist God AS THOUGH HE WERE WRONG?

---

This is messed up...and this ain't what we are saying. What we are saying is that we are to resist evil UP UNTIL THE POINT that God tells us to do otherwise, whenever that takes place. Like Paul PRAYING till the point that God told him that grace was sufficient. It's not like we are saying that, after GENUINELY KNOWING that some "evil" is God's work, that we THEN actively combat it. Keep focus on why I place so much emphasis on being attentive not ONLY to the reality of the situation at hand, but the SPIRIT as well.


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

Doc:

quote:

---

Meph: You CANNOT SAY in principle that God couldn't have used the Sept. 11th event as any type of "greater good" means.

Doc: USED I can swallow. BROUGHT ABOUT I cannot. Actually, we are dancing around a pandoras box of ambiguities. What exactly does Meph and BBB and others MEAN when they say God may have "used" or "ordained" or "is behind" or "facilitated" Sept11? Sometimes it sounds like Meph (at least) wants to say God rendered the terrorists compatibilitically free (viz. God controlled them), but other times Meph and others sound like their simply saying God sacrificed the rook, as much as he hated it, to spare the queen five moves later. I could affirm the later, but have great trouble affirming the former.

---

I am saying the same thing I've been saying. It's possible that God could have predetermined the Sept.11th event as a MEANS to a greater good, which we would NOT be readily able to discern. The "used" idea s just as problematic as the "brought about" here. You could actually affirm your "former" and "latter" at the same time.



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

Doc:

quote:

---

As said above, I don’t see how you genuinely RESPOND to evil if you’re not sure its EVIL. If its God’s just judgment, step out of the way (as Icon says). You may be thwarting the purposes of God by stepping in to protect Zosia! I agree that there may be exceptional times where the Spirit prevents you from doing what you think you should do. But in these cases, the burden to stop us is on God. Otherwise we are acting like Jesus taught us, by word and example, to act.

---

Again, what I'm saying is this: in cases of GENUINE AMBIGUITY (which are very often), we stem the tide of death, destruction, etc. If we were to ever get wind (BY GOD REVEALING IT) that something was divine judgment, then it would NOT LONGER be ambiguous, now would it? Again, this is why I put a high premium on being open to the Spirit.


Thanks,

quote:

---

What we are saying is that we are to resist evil UP UNTIL THE POINT that God tells us to do otherwise, whenever that takes place.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------
What we are saying is that we are to resist evil UP UNTIL THE POINT that God tells us to do otherwise, whenever that takes place.
---------------------

Right. So why then do you insist we admit ambiguity regarding 9/11? Why EVER admit ambiguity? If we are to unambiguously resist evil unless God unambiguously tells us to do otherwise, what ambiguity are you still talking about?

---

Heh. "The Mystery is IN the Tornado" as Doc would say. The ambiguity lies in the "WHY?" question, not in the "WHAT NOW?" question.

quote:

---

Heh. "The Mystery is IN the Tornado" as Doc would say. The ambiguity lies in the "WHY?" question, not in the "WHAT NOW?" question.

---

quote:

---

Mephi writes:

quote:

---

What we are saying is that we are to resist evil UP UNTIL THE POINT that God tells us to do otherwise, whenever that takes place.

---

Right. So why then do you insist we admit ambiguity regarding 9/11? Why EVER admit ambiguity? If we are to unambiguously resist evil unless God unambiguously tells us to do otherwise, what ambiguity are you still talking about?

Peace!
Tom

---

quote:

---

Here’s one way I see of breaking it down:

1) Whence (where is this evil coming from?): I think the answer to this question is ambiguous. Please note that ackowledging the ambiguity of the “whence” of evil does NOT mean the question isn’t very much worth wrestling with (please forgive the double-negative)—starting with serious self-reflection.

2) Whither (where is this evil going?): We should always resist evil when we encounter it. This is unambiguous.

Electra

---

quote:

---

Will this not lead (sometimes) to your tackling (=opposing evil) the person with the ball when he's on your own team (=God bringing about good through the evil)? So I think the answer to my question is, "Yes, we sometimes fight God without knowing it." Inasmuch as the evil we unambiguously (by default) oppose we sometimes (but will never know when) fight against the good which God is seeking to bring into the world via evil. Am I missing something?

Tom

---

quote:

---

It is not fighting against God to express Christian charity to help in the aftermath of it all.

---

quote:

---

I agree that there may be exceptional times where the Spirit prevents you from doing what you think you should do. But in these cases, the burden to stop us is on God. Otherwise we are acting like Jesus taught us, by word and example, to act.

---

This is what I believe that we should apply to ALL of our thinking about particular evil events. We love and do good (to the best of our understanding), all the while being open to the LEADERSHIP of the Spirit.

Is this NOW clear?

Holla,

quote:

---

THE SPIRIT, THE SPIRIT, THE SPIRIT.

---

quote:

---

What Mephi, Brandon and Brett are saying is completely different. They are saying that sometimes it is God himself causing the terrorists to fly the planes into the buildings.

---

quote:

---

What Mephi, Brandon and Brett are saying is completely different. They are saying that sometimes it is God himself causing the terrorists to fly the planes into the buildings.

---

Well, they're wrong

God doesn't ordain people or spirit beings to be evil, nor does he ordain their acts of evil. But that's very different from God being able to use their evil within his strategy. Take the cross for example. God didn't decide to make his people reject the messiah, get him arrested and crucify him. They did that themselves. As my mate always says, the systems of the world put Jesus to dead. Yet, God used that evil as part of his plan to bring redemption to the world. That's a pretty good 'good' coming out of a horrendous bad.

In a way, if God didn't do this, he would be stuffed. His big strategy for the world would only be possible if he had full cooperation from everyone. And we all know that's never going to happen. But instead, amazingly, God works within the evil that free-will agents have created.

Semeia:

quote:

---

Do you think God’s merciful judgment includes driving planes into buildings so that men, women and children can be incinerated, crushed, torn to pieces, and in some cases left alive long enough to realize you are nothing more than a head and a half a torso as someone hangs the black badge of death around your neck?

---

Hang on. What on earth does merciful judgement mean? I've been trying to show that they're really quite opposite things...

semeia:

quote:

---

As Doc has repeatedly pointed out, it is one thing to say that God “allows” evil to occur, because without freedom there cannot be love, and quite another thing entirely to say that God “authors,” “causes,” or “ordains” evil.

---

Yep, agree wholeheartedly there.

What I've been thinking about though is the judgment on Judah, when the people were kicked out of the promised land by the evil babylonians. God didn't decide that the Babylonians (or his people) to behave sinfully. But God did decide to judge Judah (and later judged Babylon). And the way he did this was to use the Babylonians to attack them. I reckon that all God would have to do was remove his protecting hand, and the rest would happen.

But this was a horrible judgement. I need to look again at the scriptures of it, but from memory, mothers were eating their children from starvation, people got eyes poked out - it was nasty!

What do you think about this?

On another note, regarding our response to evil, it should always be to bring mercy.

Think about it. On an individual level, if the disaster is pretty huge (9/11 size), our impact will be meaningful for other individuals but won't stop everything. If God's got a purpose in the evil, we won't be getting in the way.

But also, especially regarding intercessory prayer, if there's noone in the land to cry 'MERCY!', then God's gonna have to judge. So with Judah, if enough people had been praying, seeking God, repenting of their sins and the sins of their nation, God would have turned back from judgement. God would have had to go back on his threat, but I don't think he would mind. God would rather show mercy on everyone. But unless the conditions are there so he can, he's got to judge.

Is this making any sense?

Good stuff though people.

love

Tim

quote:

---

And let my tear-stained bloody maggot-maddened corpse left for vultures in an open grave be the cornerstone of His shining glory .... Does love have any meaning at all in those contexts?

---

quote:

---

Let me just get really really clear about a couple things that I think we all agree on:

1) The Creator’s goodness is not self-evident in light of the gratuitous suffering experienced within the creation.

---

quote:

---

BBBCAnada: 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."

IF you can say this with regard to Zosia, you can say it anytime, anywhere, in all situations. And now there is no way to tell God from Satan.

---

They cannot and will not allow this possibility. In this, they are advocating LESS ambiguity with regard to REASONS for particular evil events.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

Some other people want to ALLOW for the possibility of God ever using heinous means in a compatibilistic fashion to further a "greater good" goal. The reason for this is simple, too. It's a NECESSARY IMPLICATION from the worldview's presuppositions that cannot be denied. I truly believe that this has been shown beyond the realm of doubt, in that there is no LOGICAL reason to say that it isn't so. It should be noted that NO ONE is trying to say HOW OFTEN this happens, just that the possibility is genuinely THERE for it to happen...kinda like what Doc says.

They can and WILL allow this possibility. In this, they are advocating MORE ambiguity with regard to REASONS for particular evil events.


Let's break this down. Let's use the "ONE CASE" deal. The "eliminate" group would have a problem if there were to be ONE CASE of God doing the compatibilistic thing using heinous means to "greater good" ends. The "allow" group would have NO problem if this were to happen.


This is NOT to draw some type of battle lines. We are still keeping the main things the main things. This is merely to locate what I think are the crucial issues. But also something else. There is a very SIMPLE way for the "eliminate" people to prove their point. Simply show credible reasons why the possibility must be removed.

So far, what I'm seeing is that the "eliminate" crew has described love...and stated that divine providence, means AND ends in all "greater good" pursuits, and each EXISTENTIAL MOMENT that God interacts with human beings MUST be constrained by that definition. They have said that some historical events are so horrible IN AND OF THEMSELVES, WITHOUT LOOKING AT ANY FURTHER CONTEXT, that "love" would NEVER use these things as means to any ends.

To me, this has not been persuasive for a VARIETY of reasons. But I'll say more on that later.


Anyway, this is how I see things standing.

More later,


PS: Electra is right. I DO NOT negate the existence of gratuitous evil...nor does my position logically entail that.

quote:

---

Brandon: In otherwords, he (Doc) confirmed Meph Man's position as I said before! It's not a question of speculation! It's a question of it being a possibility and even Greg admits as much. Which, to me means, he has conceded his point and Meph Man has won the argument!

Doc: Calm down my man. I conceded that this may have been judgment in the sense of option #3 given above. ("God facilitated 9/11 in the sense that he set up a world where decisions have individual and collective consequences.") I think Meph is saying something more than this. He’s defending the possibility of option #4 (though he didn’t like the way I phrased it).

---

And

quote:

---

BBBCanada: It is quite possible that even in instances of "evil," (which are actually God's judgments and therefore are not evil) we may actually see a loving God at work. We should not assume that all "evil" is Satanic. It could very well be a judgment of God!

Doc: Hypothetically, its hard to disagree with this. But I’m wondering what function such speculation would have. Jesus seems to prohibit it (Lk 13:1-5; Jn 9:1-5). So does the book of Job. Moreover, everything about Jesus healing and deliverance ministry sets the precedent for seeing afflictions as ultimately derived from the devil. My worry is that, even in saying, "perhaps it’s a judgment," we undermine the evil of the evil. Hence we may not be as aggressive as we ought in confronting it.

---

Of course Meph is saying more than this. He is affirming proposition #4, in that God would do this for some “greater glory purpose”, though we cannot speculate on that. That is, we cannot speculate on what that “greater glory purpose is.” But he is saying that God would be responsible in the sense that he is working in conjunction with self-determined freewill beings in a compatibilistic way. Just as you say that God would do this for good. He is saying it for “evil.” And he is saying it within the context of God working this way as “possible” judgment. Regardless, the point being is that you still affirm that somehow, it is possible that this was a judgment of God (through human instruments) And that is all the Meph Man was saying.

Therefore, you have conceded to his point. You say it is a possible judgment from God, and this is what the Meph Man was saying. For you to make that statement you have done nothing more than what you say the Meph Man has done and that is to speculate.

Semeia said:

quote:

---

But if Jesus really is God, and God really is love, then faith is trusting that God will NOT act in concert (compatibilistically) with torturers and rapists and murderers because God’s power is bound by love, and love is above ALL else, including judgment.

---

Didn’t read the urls I posted did ya? It is safe to say that not all OT’s agree. Pinnock and Brow believe in judgments prior to the final judgment, just as we have "foretastes" in other areas, we have a foretaste of the final judgment. A theodicy should include the judgment factor from both testaments. For to exclude it would be to have only half a theodicy. Greg's theodicy does not allow for judgment (because of our definitive picture in Christ) though he says it is "possible."

P.S. By the way. No need to tell me to calm down. I was emphasizing my point, not yelling. Though I realize how one could mistake it as such.

P.S.S Great post Brandi!


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 09/14/2002 10:33:53 AM

quote:

---

Some people want to ELIMINATE the possibility of God ever using heinous means in a compatibilistic fashion (either type) to further a "greater good" goal, however THAT is conceived.

---