quote:

---

We have no doubt that what the nazi guard is doing is evil. On the other hand we do have a strong basis for doubt about whether the nazi guard himself is evil. Certainly his action is evil but this is not conclusive about his person....

And what is loving action toward the nazi guard in this case (assuming it is in our power)? It is to stop him from taking this evil action and it is to show him even at risk to ourselves that what he is doing is evil.

---

Yes, this makes sense. I remember when 9-11 happened I heard myself saying "As horrible as this evil event is, the terrorist believed in their heart that they were doing the "right" thing." We can judge the tragedy on Sept. 11 as being evil but the terrorists who drove the planes? Can we judge their intentions? They believed they were doing the right thing by their religious beliefs.

I agree that the loving action is to stop further evil action but HOW do we show the terrorist what they did was evil if their belief is that is was not? How do we judge the religious beliefs of another person?


Iconoclast

quote:

---

Whatever we do must be done AND must be seen to be done out of a true concern for all the stakeholders involved

---

This reminds me of the Madelyne Gorman Toogood case. We know for sure that to beat a four year old is atrocious and evil. We also know that a "stop action" is needed for the mother. What I am personally hoping and praying is that whatever decision is decided upon will be one with concern for ALL the parties involved.

What makes things really complicated in some cases is that some people believe in their minds that disciplining their child through hitting is the most loving thing to do. We know that hitting a child is wrong but what do you do with a parent who has a belief system that "to spare the rod is to spoil the child" and takes this to the extreme without judging their beliefs?


Thanks for the helpful reply, Iconoclast! Would you mind replying to these questions too?
~Brandi~

quote:

---

Why can’t we say that the Zosia event was a POTENTIAL black pellet in a totally white glass box.

The totally white glass box being the creation of free-will beings which is very good.

Then we can totally affirm that God never does or causes evil. That when we see evil we know it wasn’t God which actualized the potential but some free-will agent acting against God’s will.

---

If you want to say this, then the best thing for you to do is to become a (yeah, I'm saying it again) PROCESS THEIST! Not just an open view theism.

David Ray Griffin's said it. Brandon's said it. Modes's said it (in so many words). And I KNOW I've said it: Open view theism gives God SUFFICIENT UNILATERAL power to make the problem of evil ETHICAL situation quite problematic. In process theism, there is absolutely NO WAY that God could be responsible for any evil that we see historically. No way. Zip. Zero. And it makes perfect sense within the system, because God's power is always seen as PERSUASIVE, and in no wise coercive. Ah, but what do the suppositions of open view theism allow for?

1) God CAN act compatibilistically (both types) on free-willed beings
2) God can unilaterally speak and act in history

This is why Brandon keeps asking the question that NO ONE is answering...and that Griffin asked before him:

If it's POSSIBLE for God to have either unilaterally OR compatibilistically saved Zosia from such a horrible death, THEN...WHY...DIDN'T...HE?


No amount of reframing is going to get rid of this question. None! If God had the power to COMPATIBILISTICALLY turn that guards head away from Zosia, giving her just enough time to escape his notice....OR had the ability to, via angel, blinding light, small stroke of the guard, what-friggin-ever, create a diversion that would definitively save Zosia's life...then WHY DIDN'T HE? And make no mistake. This IS the power that open view theism grants to God. See, I., we can agree that the morally free-willed sentience is an intrisically good thing. Fine. But once we say that God has the POWER to LIMIT that "good" thing via compatibilism, NOW we have issues! And Doc's (and every other open theist's) conception of the world DOES allow for it. Griffin's has critiqued the free-will and soul-making theodicies like WHAT...and no one seems to touch the real issue. Giving credit to Doc, he has undoubtedly (at least in mind mind) created one of the most COMPREHENSIVE theodicies out there by employing all of the theodicies creatively and in tandem. HOWEVER, it still misses this one point.

Once you say that God can work compatibilistically IN ANY WISE, the problems emerge naturally. And the only thing that I see that really helps in this wise is SOME form of the "glorification idea" I'm dead serious. I may be blind as a bat or just not seeing something...but IMO I've tried to look at these suppositions from MYRIAD ANGLES, and this is the only sound solution I come up with. The only other solution that would retain the majority of the explanatory power found in Doc's view would be to go to WHOLESALE process theism! Like I said, I could be wrong as two left shoes, but for all my reading and thinking ( a significant amount which has been posted on this board) I have come to no other conclusion. Unless we can say that it is POSSIBLE that Zosia could have been a "necessary tragic sacrifice" in SOME IMPORTANT regard, then the theodicy is NOT COMPLETE! It has a friggin hole the size of Texas!

This won't go away, I. It just won't.


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

quote:

---

So we really have a totally white box of pellets that multiply and unfortunately some of them choose evil and go on to influence others to choose evil. Sounds like Othello. You can’t turn black pieces into white pieces by laying down black pieces. That’s it! It’s one big game of Othello – now where are the corners – we NEED to capture the corners.

---

Now, of course, you WOULD choose Othello...which I don't play. So I had to go look up the friggin rules! Actually, the game looks kind of cool. But anyways...

I would say this. The Othello game is a very good analogy for the strategy of non-violent resistence. Basically strategically placed loving action CAN change people. However, I don't see this as being a very good analogy for the essence of axiological measurement, moral deliberation, or the activity of divine providence for that matter. Remember, I., we HAVE to keep in mind our worldview. It's so pivotal to what we are doing. THAT's why I keep on it the way I do. If our statements about divine providence do NOT match up well to the metaphysical concepts that are supposed to undergird it, we are just as contradictory as people who have a view of prayer that doesn't match up to the idea of divine providence that is supposed to be undergirding it. (See the 18th page of the PBS thread about prayer) I completely agree that the only way to have a lasting peaceful, just, and loving society would be by non-violent resistence and the permeating influence of love. (I'm WITH Walter Wink on this) However, this is also LIKE the situation I mentioned above...about Mother Teresa and Ghandi choosing DEATH over killing for any reason. The believer in this philosophy has to believe that possible extinction is BETTER THAN going down to another person's level...in ANY wise. I just cannot see Mother Teresa and Ghandi being part of an ASSASINATION plot against any tyrannical figure. Just can't. But what does that say about Bonhoeffer? Was his approach WRONG? Personally, I don't think so.

But again, I don't think this has much to do with divine providence...especially given the open view suppositions. VERY important!

Just some thoughts,


PS: How about you answer my question? Would the INTENTIONAL (regardless of the intention itself) taking of someone elses life be considered a quantum GOOD or quantum EVIL?

Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/24/2002 08:57:34 AM

quote:

---

1. I ain' mad. Believe dat. Just statin' an option for you to relieve your frustration.

2. I've never said the the picture of God drawn from the open view suppositions is EQUIVALENT to the Biblical God. I'd have to be an idiot to say that. What I'm saying is that INSOFAR AS the Biblical God is interpreted by the open view metaphysical presuppositions, THAT interpretation can be critiqued.

3. Nice mushroom cloud pictures.

---

I KNEW you were not mad!

And I agree with you on ALL three of your points. (Nice wording on the second. )

=============================

Here's a follow up quote:

quote:

---

"...now I am become Death [Shiva], the destroyer of worlds..."
Physicist Robert Oppenheimer, Supervising Scientist Manhattan Project, on 16 July 1945 at 0529 HRS,in the Jornada del Muerto desert near the Trinity site in the White Sands Missile Range. ...quoting from the Bhagavad-Gita upon witnessing first atomic detonation by mankind.

---

My wife and older son visited White Sands this summer on the way back from California. But they only brought me back a hat. Cool, though.

quote:

---

The exact quote from the Bhagavad-Gita is:
If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds.

---

And it is interesting to note that the Atomic Bomb website I got these from leads with a quote about man (the maker of 'gods'):

quote:

---

"No beast is more savage than man,
when possessed with power answerable to his rage."
Plutarch Cicero

---

quote:

---

2. I've never said the the picture of God drawn from the open view suppositions is EQUIVALENT to the Biblical God. I'd have to be an idiot to say that.

---

quote:

---

Doesn't this mean that you think open theists who do believe their view of God is biblical are idiots?

---

Ok...explaining.

I'm saying that one can posit a God that operates by the metaphysical suppositions of open view theism...and NOT be talking about the Biblical God. Discussing a god that is "open" doesn't translate directly to talking about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To say that positing a God according to OV suppositions NATURALLY and LOGICALLY leads to the biblical God is idiocy.

This is distinct from saying that Biblical God seems to FIT the metaphysical suppositions of open view theism...and therefore the open view is BIBLICAL. And that's what you are saying, isn't it? You are saying that open view theists believe that their view of God IS biblical...which is to say that they believe that the Biblical God is best explained by the open worldview. I would not say that people who believed THIS were idiots.

Hope this has cleared that up.

Holla,

quote:

---

M. said:

SUFFICIENT UNILATERAL situation problematic absolutely responsible historically PERSUASIVE suppositions compatibilistically unilaterally unilaterally compatibilistically reframing COMPATIBILISTICALLY diversion definitively free-willed sentience intrisically compatibilism conception critiqued free-will soul-making theodicies undoubtedly COMPREHENSIVE theodicies employing theodicies creatively compatibilistically naturally glorification something suppositions explanatory WHOLESALE significant conclusion necessary sacrifice IMPORTANT non-violent resistence Basically strategically axiological measurement deliberation providence statements providence metaphysical contradictory providence undergirding completely non-violent resistence permeating situation philosophy extinction ASSASINATION tyrannical Bonhoeffer Personally providence especially suppositions INTENTIONAL regardless considered

S.:

Given this, I'm wondering why carpal tunnel syndrome only shows up when typing "Iconoclast"?

The words above are from the last post alone.

Thanks,
S.

---

quote:

---

Is it just me, or are things getting a little petty around here? Wow.

---

I think we can at LEAST say that we are getting side-tracked. So, let's kill all that peripheral noize. I vote that we get our focus back, y'all. We've got some good stuff we're dealing with here.

Centering,


Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/24/2002 11:26:02 AM