 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Clarification of Terms: "Love" and "Evil" | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/28/2002 7:12 PM (GMT -6) |   | Semeia
There is NO metaphysical constraint STOPPING God from preventing evil. He CHOOSES NOT TO, because to choose otherwise would be to restrict human free will and thus prevent humans from freely choosing love. And out of the deepest, most suffering love imaginable, he makes this choice over and over and over, moment by moment. If He didn’t, we could not say, by our own definition, that He was actually loving us. We would have to say rather that he loved the IDEA of love.
Iconoclast
What is at issue here is the nature of this “metaphysical constraint” that arises out of God’s choice to create free-will beings.
To say that it is “metaphysical” in the sense that process theism uses that term leads to a view of God where He is a bureaucrat – someone who enforces or abides by the rules just because that is what they are supposed to do. It suggests that God is like the owner of a business who set up a hiring process and is now telling his best friend that he must go through the hiring process because the owner CANNOT override the rule he created. It reminds me of the Assyrian? Kings in the Bible who when they made a law it was irrevocable EVEN by them! Of course they just made a new law that circumvented the first one. To get around this concern process theism posits that the creation was NECESSARY to begin with and not really a choice.
Again, the problem is that as soon as choice is introduced into the mix one must show that the choice is ALWAYS operative which means it must be able to be understood as a choice that makes sense at each fractal (perspectival?) level. To say that the choice creates a metaphysic where the original chooser CANNOT continue to choose is what I call the Bureaucratic Defense and it is hard to swallow. Perhaps a better way to say this is that humans do not have any experiential logic that we can map to this concept and therefore it fails to really land. We just have a really hard time buying the argument that an all-powerful God CANNOT intervene just because He set up a rule when it is clear to us that a loving God WOULD intervene. It feels too much like some distant CEO who made a bunch of rules that are supposed to be FOR us but really don’t work out in practice – maybe it is good for the whole – but it sure isn’t in the best interest of some particular individual.
What is being argued is that this “metaphysical constraint” arises out of the mechanics of choice. Let’s call it the “Fractal Nature of Creative Choice”. Which is of course a metaphysical argument but it is an argument about the metaphysics of choice. What is being denied is that creative choice can set up a metaphysic where the choice of the creator can no longer operate.
I totally agree that the choice to create beings capable of love necessitates that said beings have free-will and thus that God MUST allow these beings to actually choose evil, else we have not really been given free will.
The goal of this argument is to find experiential logic that we can map to this choice that helps us to congruently affirm God’s goodness even in the worst possible situations we see. It is to help us see through His eyes such that we would say – yes, if I was in God’s position I would choose the same thing AND even though I am not in His position and must suffer terrible consequences now because of His choice I still affirm that this choice IS love.
Doc
Since free will has to unfold over time, the decision to give it is a decision to leave it over time. So there is, I would argue, an element of IRREVOCABILITY to it. If God gives me the choice to do x or y, and then changes his mind because I'm going to do y, he never really gave me the choice to do x or y.
Iconoclast
The problem here in my view is mapping the concept of IRREVOCABILITY to the original choice. I think this is a limited model. I think a more accurate model is to say that God CAN stop us from doing y which MEANS that He revokes the giving of the choice to do x or y. Thus for God to continue to choose to give us the choice to do x or y MEANS that He CHOOSES to allows us to do y.
The bureaucrat is really CHOOSING to enforce a rule and MUST decide in that moment that it is still a valid rule to choose to enforce. For the bureaucrat to say that they were just following the rules when they knew that it was evil is not a justifiable defense.
Thus in every act of evil that God chooses to allow He is choosing to re-affirm the choice of free will. We must be able to see IN PRINCIPLE how choosing to affirm the choice of free will in the worst kind of evil we see is STILL a loving choice.
Doc
The choice to give freedom has to be irrevocable, within whatever limits and conditions God gave it. So yes, TO THIS EXTENT I don't think God is 'free" to revoke it. He binds himself to the implications of the world he created.
Iconoclast
God CAN revoke our ability to choose. However, as soon as He does then our ability to choose can no longer serve the purpose it was meant to serve. We can no longer become loving beings. Thus God is “free” to revoke our freedom but only at the cost of Eternal Death for us (we can no longer become loving beings). Therefore for God to revoke our freedom BEFORE we have solidified it ourselves to such an extent already is for God to KILL us from His point of view (Eternal Death). This He chooses not to do because God is love. This concept maps well to our experiential logic.
Thus it becomes more clear why God does not revoke His choice to allow us to choose evil. It is NOT a metaphysical property of some level of irrevocability of free will. It is because once God has chosen to create a free will being He chooses to love that free will being AS a free will being UNTIL that free will being chooses NOT to be a free will being anymore.
Doc
But, if you are going to say that God CAN intervene any time he wants, I don't see any way to avoid this or some other "greater good" position. In each and every case, God decides to intervene or not. And since God always does the best thing, in each case it must be BETTER to intervene OR NOT. Hence, it was BETTER to allow Zosia to be tortured THAN NOT. You locate this "greater good" in God's love for the Nazi (or whoever) while the standard blueprint view would say it is for some mysterious greater good... but I don't see that it is IN PRINCIPLE different from the standard blueprint view.... and beset with the same difficulties.
Iconoclast
The standard moral logic problem that the “CAN’T” seeks to get around is that it would be evil for God to allow Zosia to be tortured when He COULD have stopped it.
When we reframe this situation in the light of the Fractal Nature of Creative Choice this moral logic no longer applies to this situation. We realize now that the appropriate mapping is that God is allowing the torture of Zosia because the only way to stop it is to revoke the nazi guard’s free will and thus KILL him (Eternal Death). Would God do a greater evil in order to prevent a lesser evil? Would we kill one of our children if they started pinching their sister? THIS is the appropriate logic of this situation.
“Do not fear him who can maim and kill, rather fear the Lord who can cast you into Hell.” Eternal Death is much, much worse than being maimed or killed.
This gives us an experiential logic that explains very clearly why God allows such evil.
The problem with this logic is that it is very hard for us to map Zosia and the nazi guard to it. Our minds rebel when we try to do this. We see the nazi guard as an evil agent who God should rightly strike down. This is the stolen knowledge of good and evil operating – it is our judgement. Thus our judgement causes us to judge God for allowing the nazi guard to do evil.
Doc
Do you want to bind yourself to the position that every time evil is allowed, it is for the purpose of love for the people involved?
Iconoclast
If by “the purpose of love” you mean the necessity of love requiring free will then yes. The Fractal Nature of Creative Choice entails that what is true of the highest level is true at every level. Thus God chose to create free will beings for the purpose of love for us. God chose to allow Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for the purpose of love for Eve. God allowed Cain to kill Abel for the purpose of love for Cain. And notice how God dealt with Adam and Eve and Cain afterwards – He didn’t destroy them, He was merciful.
If God allowed Cain to kill Abel and this allowance had nothing to do with love for Cain what would that mean? God doesn’t love Cain? He is not allowing him to do evil in the hope that Cain will choose love?
God allowed the evil of Jesus’ death on the cross specifically for the purpose of love for the people who killed Him. Jesus said, “forgive them for they know not what they do”, of the very people who murdered Him.
God allows evil because, out of love, God chooses NOT to KILL (Eternal Death) the agent causing the evil. He mercifully allows the agent doing evil to see and feel the consequences of his intention and his act and CONTINUES to love that agent in the hope that the agent will turn back to love. And when this happens, when that agent who went around murdering Christians in cold blood repents, God and all the angels in heaven rejoice.
Let’s never forget that the agent that God, out of love, is choosing NOT to KILL and therefore allowing to do evil is US.
Doc
God loved Hitler so much he allowed him to carry out his program? I personally find this difficult.
Iconoclast
Did God love Saul of Tarsus so much (so much? enough?) that he allowed him to carry out his program?
Remember also that “Hitler’s program” wasn’t just Hitler’s. It was ALL those people who supported his hatred and actually carried out his evil – which was really THEIR evil. So when we talk about the evil Hitler did we must see it as corporate evil. And yes, God chose NOT to take away ALL those people’s free will (Eternal Death) and therefore allowed all that horrific evil. One has to ask, did Hitler create all that evil? Or did ALL those people with their anger and hatred create Hitler?
Also, with this concept one could say that there was no hope for Hitler himself – he was beyond the ability to choose love and yet God chose NOT to compatibilistically cause him to stop doing evil because he was the embodiment of all the free wills who were yet supporting him. This is along the lines of the tares and the wheat parable and suggests why God waited to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah until there was no one left who was righteous. Similarly with the flood. And isn’t this true for us today. To simply go and assassinate the leader of an outlaw country is illegal (we consider it evil) AND it is ineffective because the leader is always the embodiment of a group of people who support him or her.
Semeia
Out of the deepest, most suffering love imaginable, he makes this choice over and over and over, moment by moment.
Doc
This is where we part. If its moment by moment, then you’re strapped with accepting that EVERY MOMENT of evil is allowed for loving purposes. If ever God sees its not loving to allow evil, he simply stops it. This is, to my mind, as problematic as any version of the blueprint worldview is.
Iconoclast
It is NOT that the evil happening to US is out of love specifically FOR US – as though it is really for our own good. Every moment of evil is allowed for the very same loving purpose – love requires free will. Every moment of evil is allowed because a free will agent is choosing to do evil and God is choosing in that moment NOT to take away the free will of THAT agent out of love for THAT agent – NOT for some abstract sense of humanity.
That love is the deepest, most suffering love imaginable. It shows the depth of His love for us evildoers.
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 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 9/29/2002 2:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Ooooh. I am LOVING all this dialogue. Let me try to do a little something here...
The problem that I'm seeing between Semeia and Doc:
Semeia doesn't want to say that God is basically going by some self-chosen rules BEFORE creation, and just APPLYING those rules to each non-God sentient being that comes about. This seems to abstract, like free-willed being are merely INSTANCES of a principle in effect. For her, it is imperative that God is ACTIVELY loving each person from moment to moment. She sees a danger in what Doc says in that it seems to deny this.
Doc doesn't want to say that God is basically holding ONTO his behavior as he goes along, because it gives the connotation that God could AT ANY TIME stop doing what he's doing, if he so chose. To say that God could literally REMOVE the "power to the contrary" center of non-God beings at any time brings an INCREDIBLE problem with respect to the "rules" of the game. For him, it's imperative that God's self-chosen limitations for THIS CREATION be on the level of a "metaphysical" boundary that God CANNOT break by sheer fiat.
*************************************
Meph's Problems with Semeia's Idea:
As Doc noted about my argumentation, for Semeia to say what she is saying leads to a view of "greater good" logic of a very problematic type...that is ONLY resolved by moving to wholesale process. Moreover, as Doc also noted, there are some interesting conclusions that we come to when evil people triumph in any regard.
Meph's Problems with Doc's idea:
Doc's view allows for BOTH TYPES of compatibilism, which functionally acts JUST LIKE Semeia's talking about. Meaning that whenever God WANTED TO, God could act in a compatibilistic fashion on any human being. But this places Doc RIGHT in the problem that he accuses Semeia's position of. Open view suppositions NATURALLY allow for this potential compatibilstic action.
*************************************
Meph's Proposed resolution between Semeia and Doc:
God is deeply integrous. God keeps all covenants, including those with GODSELF. For God to covenant with Godself to perform, orchestrate, or allow something is JUST AS BINDING on God as any type of metaphysical limitation. This means that, to the extent that God has decided to have a certain type of world, he will NOT contradict the fundamental principles of that world. Taken to this discussion, since God has decided to have a world populated with free-willed beings, he "cannot" do anything that go against that...and basically this would include things like COMPLETELY TAKING AWAY the element of "power to the contrary" in each non-God being [Note: this is DISTINCT from compatibilistically limiting a beings choices!!!] or having a constantly unstable "magical" environment where no dependable laws existed. Thus on the level of God's intention for creation, "metaphysical" self-limitations ARE set in place for God.
Now, on the level of particular historical events, God is ever immanent. And the metaphysical self-limitations have there effects here. (This would be in line with Doc's 6 theses) But this doesn't negate the fact that God works for our good MOMENT by MOMENT. Actually, it can be said that God works to maximize our aesthetic value at all times. HOWEVER, this is conditioned by something...
God's self-covenantal ability, as it applies to ALL levels!
In other words, it is possible AND plausible to say that God has plans for Creation both on a "macro" AND a "mirco" level that God binds Godself by. This divine operation on BOTH levels leads to a type of "greater good" effect...and particular evil situations can be a "tragic necessary result" of either level or a combination of both. What this ends up saying is the following:
God is always involved to minimize evil and harm within TWO LEVELS:
1) METAPHYSICAL "rules" that God convenanted and set up to allow for free-will to exist.
2) PARTICULAR directions for Creation that God may want to occur.
Now, let me show you what this does.
FOR SEMEIA, this allows you to UNEQUIVOCABLY say that God always works in loving manners to minimize evil MOMENT BY MOMENT in people's lives. This action always takes place...just within the constraints of the God/Creation interaction. Thus there is NO ambiguity in God's character, but in creational factors.
FOR DOC, this allows you to account for God's ability to employ BOTH types of compatibilism...while steering away from saying that God "CAN" use this ability arbitrarily. God will only use either type of compatibilism as it goes along with BOTH LEVELS of creational factors.
*************************************
What EACH PARTY may have to compromise on, from my perspective:
Semeia, if you were to accept this, you may have to rethink your issues with the whole "greater good" idea. I've already shown how my "greater good" line of thinking is DISTINCT from the way Tom and Doc others had been conceiving it. In short, you have to be able to say that it IS POSSIBLE for God to, of his own free decision, place Godself in situations where "necessary tragic sacrifices" are indeed the case. You have to be able to concede that this is DISTINCT from saying that God is complicit in evil. And this is fairly easy to do. Evil is NOT just about "impacts" as opposed to "intents" Moral evil (which is what we'd be dealing with in discussing God) has to deal with intents, attitudes, AND impacts. And it can be argued that, in God's case as being Creator and Providential Caretaker, God's actions are NEVER "evil" because the intent, attitudes, and OVERALL impacts are always against evil. Remember that though God interacts with us individually, providential concerns are NECESSARILY social and collective. Though God may esteem the individual as MUCH AS the collective, there may still be times where an individual has to "take one for the team" Any losses that are incurred are thoroughly mourned by God, but taken to insure that the greater good ends for the God/Creation interaction come to pass. Unlike human beings, God is able to fully intergrate the sticky quagmire between virtue ethics and action-based ethics!
Doc, if you were to accept this, you may to rethink your ideas on God always being ACTIVELY against EVERY particular instance of "evil." You could no longer just say on principle that certain evils are IN NO WAY instrumentally being used by God. And I'm not talking REDEEMED by God after the fact. I'm talking a "necessary tragic sacrifice" that was part of a "greater good" effort by God. The main problem that I saw from you seemed to be how to live in such ambiguity. I believe that we have ascertained a pretty good way to think about it that helps out TREMENDOUSLY. Check out the posts on the "belief" ideas on the PBS thread.
Now, I ask...CAN WE DO THIS?
If y'all can't, that's cool. All I know is that it works really well for me. Solves most, if not all, the problems. All the holes are plugged up. God is NOT seen as arbitrary. God is NOT seen as "evil" or doing evil for it's own sake. (just like God didn't use the lying spirit for ITS own sake!) God's actions are NOT seen in complete contradiction to the revelation in Christ.
Sooooo...what do you guys think? How off am I? 
Holla,
PS: Brandi, I'm ALMOST finished with my stuff to you. I've been trying to hone it. I hope that you'll REEEEALY get something out of it. Patience DOES pays off. 
Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/29/2002 07:50:03 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/29/2002 4:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi
As Doc noted about my argumentation, for Semeia to say what she is saying leads to a view of "greater good" logic of a very problematic type...that is ONLY resolved by moving to wholesale process. Moreover, as Doc also noted, there are some interesting conclusions that we come to when evil people triumph in any regard.
Iconoclast
Nice summary Mephi, still thinking about it. I don’t get this part however. It seems to me that Semeia’s argument gets around all the problems associated with “greater good” logic.
There are two basic things God does:
One) He creates free-will beings who can choose to do evil. No “greater good” problem here because the creation of these beings IS totally good. There is no act of evil here that a “greater good” justifies.
Two) He allows free-will beings to do actual evil. He allows these free-will beings to carry out their evil because to stop them would be to DO a greater evil in order to prevent a lesser evil. You don’t kill your child when he pinches his sister. There is no “greater good” problem here either. God is NOT doing or allowing any evil for a “greater good”. God is refraining from doing a greater evil which necessarily entails that He allow the lesser evil. Notice how this is the exact opposite of the "greater good" problem: It is NOT OK to do a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil or to attain a greater good (this is the greater good problem) - however, it is certainly OK to refrain from doing a greater evil when doing that greater evil is the ONLY way to prevent the lesser evil (no greater good problem here).
All this requires is a re-frame of how great an evil it would be for God to compatibilistically stop the full intention of a free-will agent. It would be like choosing to have a child and then locking him or her in a room for the rest of their lives to prevent them from doing anything bad.
And what are the interesting conclusions we come to when evil people triumph in any regard? I must have missed that.
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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 9/29/2002 3:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Just trying to catch up here, so forgive me if I missed where this was discussed before. Iconoclast, I am hearing you say two things: On the one hand, you agree that God does unilaterally intervene in the world to accomplish certain things, but on the other hand you seem to deny that God ever does anything that would negate someone's free will, because to do so would be to commit a greater evil (causing Eternal Death). Am I hearing you right?
Enjoying everyone's brainwork,
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/29/2002 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm going to jump in, briefly. Brett's post provided a hand-hold.
quote:
negate someone's free will
Earlier I'd made noise about the difference (in my mind) between defining free will based on numerical choices verses defining free will based on freedom to follow one's nature. Calvinism perhaps totally aside (maybe not--but don't tell them that, at least right now), Mary's "yes" to the angel is the classic case of non-deliberative freedom.
I think maybe Doc's post is along the order of numerical choices too.
But as to the post right above this one, Brett's question for Icon: I'd like to see the Brett's question answered with respect, not to numerical choices (so that to "negate someone's free will" yoiu have to do more than just limit their choice to one possible selection. That is not enough.) but answered, rather, with respect to freedom to follow one's nature.
Thanks.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/29/2002 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
Faith and knowledge are not mutually exclusive. In both instances I would seek to increase knowledge rather than casting doubt on it. Both faith and knowledge are important. However, I believe knowledge is relatively important whereas faith is decisively important.
Iconoclast
Yes. This makes a ton of sense to me. If you have knowledge but do not have faith – you do not act congruently with this knowledge – then you will never learn because you will never confirm or deny this knowledge. Therefore faith is decisively important. Without faith knowledge is useless.
Peirce seems to wrap these two together (knowledge and faith) in his definition of the word “belief”. To Peirce to “believe” something means that you act as though it were true. If you don’t act congruently on a “belief” then you don’t really hold that belief. If a person says that they believe that God loves them but doesn’t act as though God loves them, then they don't really believe that God loves them. They may have “knowledge” about God loving them but they do not act out of “faith” that God loves them.
I think this is where I have been misunderstanding you. I think your use of the word “faith” is the same as my use (really Peirce’s use) of the word “belief”.
I think we would both agree that someone has “faith” or holds a “belief” for reasons.
I think we would both agree that if someone has knowledge but does not act on that knowledge then that leads to error = “hamartia” = sin. Thus whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. EVEN when the knowledge is incorrect!
Electra
quote:
Iconoclast
I think that we can "conclusively know" that God is good as well as we can "conclusively know" that the Earth goes around the Sun. Would you agree with this?
No. God is not a scientifically verifiable object. If God were, then eventually this would be conclusively proven and only idiots would deny it. The problem is not that we lack information, it is that we lack faith.
Iconoclast
What is a “scientifically verifiable object”? I think a strong argument can be made that it is any object that is “real”. What does it mean for something to be “real”? Peirce’s definition is the “real” is that which all sensible inquirers come to conclude or believe about something. The stolen knowledge of good and evil of course blocks “sensible inquiry” – as soon as something is set up as an absolute good or an absolute evil judgement blocks any further inquiry.
There was a time when the idea of the Earth going around the Sun was thought by the community to be absolutely false – heretical even – people who believed otherwise were thought to be idiots. Ultimately the scientific method of inquiry used by a community of sensible inquirers changed this belief such that current opinion of the matter is mostly settled. I assume that just like the Flat Earth Society there must still be some who refuse to accept the community of sensible inquirer’s settled opinion on this subject.
But why did opinion get settled so conclusively on this subject? Because it is “real” – it is “reality”.
Just so, I would argue that the goodness of God is every bit as “real” as the Earth going around the Sun. Thus the community of sensible inquirers using the scientific method of coming to a belief will ultimately conclude that this is so. Opinion will ultimately become settled on this subject by the community of sensible inquirers.
In other words, one day every tongue will confess … and one day every knee shall bow. Why can’t this mean one day here on Earth?
A key aspect of “sensible inquiry” is faith. Acting congruently on your knowledge. I would suggest that anyone who acts congruently on their knowledge that God is good will come to confirm for themselves that God is indeed good. Acting in total faith that God is good leads us to confirm the reality that God is indeed good.
Another key aspect of “sensible inquiry” is denying our own knowledge of good and evil. Denying our propensity, our habit, to label “things” as good or bad. To set them up as absolutes.
The scientific method of inquiry is faith-based open inquiry that actively denies our own knowledge of good and evil. This method leads us to a community of people whose opinion is settled on the Earth going around the Sun AND, I believe, will lead us to a community whose opinion is settled on the goodness of God.
Now, you might say, wait a second – where is our theory of God’s goodness and where are the reproducible experiments that anyone can conduct and get the same results?
My answer is that the basis for the theory is found on the cross and the reproducible experiment is for a sensible inquirer to act in total faith on the belief that Jesus is the savior by giving his life fully to Jesus. It works every time. 
Electra
The problem is not that we lack information, it is that we lack faith.
Iconoclast
In other words, we have the knowledge, we have the evidence, we know the experiment, we just don’t actually DO the experiment. If we all did, we would all confirm the truth for ourselves and thus opinion on God’s goodness would be settled, just like the opinion about the Earth going around the Sun.
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
Edited by - Iconoclast on 09/29/2002 11:09:34 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/29/2002 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | BJS
On the one hand, you agree that God does unilaterally intervene in the world to accomplish certain things, but on the other hand you seem to deny that God ever does anything that would negate someone's free will, because to do so would be to commit a greater evil (causing Eternal Death). Am I hearing you right?
Iconoclast
Yes. But this still allows for God to cause an agent to do SOME things without negating their free will. It just means that God cannot continue to frustrate an agent’s intention without essentially revoking their free will.
If an agent has an evil intention then for God to continue to frustrate that intention is the same as God revoking that agent’s ability to choose evil. To revoke that agent’s ability to choose evil is the same as revoking that agent’s ability to choose love. Which is the same as consigning that agent to Eternal Death. And since God loves ALL free-will agents He chooses not to do that. He wants ALL to be saved.
So, how can God cause an agent to do some things without negating their free will? If I have an intention to go to the store I hop in my car and start driving there. Now, most of my behavior in driving the car to the store is on autopilot – it is unconscious programmed behavior. For God to cause me to drive slightly faster in order to get me there for a “divine appointment” in no way negates my free will. And praying in such a way as to give God permission to use me - in such a way as to truly form an intention for God to use me - allows Him to work through my subconscious even more.
Al
Mary's "yes" to the angel is the classic case of non-deliberative freedom.
Iconoclast
Yes. Mary had already formed an intention to do God’s will and solidified that intention through prior congruent behavior to the point where the answer was already “yes”. No deliberation required.
Al
But as to the post right above this one, Brett's question for Icon: I'd like to see the Brett's question answered with respect, not to numerical choices (so that to "negate someone's free will" you have to do more than just limit their choice to one possible selection. That is not enough.) but answered, rather, with respect to freedom to follow one's nature.
Iconoclast
The “freedom to follow one’s nature” implies the freedom to NOT follow one’s nature. Negating someone’s free will means to continue to prevent the carrying out of those intentions that are material to the freedom to either follow or deny one’s nature. It means to prevent further “nature” or “character” formation.
I am still not quite sure what you are getting at Al. Can you give an example or come up with an analogy that hilights the distinction you are making?
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
Edited by - Iconoclast on 09/29/2002 11:55:00 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2002 2:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Al: Mary's "yes" to the angel is the classic case of non-deliberative freedom.
Iconoclast: Yes. Mary had already formed an intention to do God’s will and solidified that intention through prior congruent behavior to the point where the answer was already “yes”. No deliberation required.
quote:
Iconoclast: The “freedom to follow one’s nature” implies the freedom to NOT follow one’s nature.
Below you define it as the opportunity to not...
I disagree here, though, because one free to follow one's nature (a rock) can not otherwise follow its nature (float). But in being what the Word spoke it to be, and in unfolding is potentialities, it is free.
quote:
Negating someone’s free will means to continue to prevent the carrying out of those intentions that are material to the freedom to either follow or deny one’s nature.
quote:
Iconoclast: It (Negating someone’s free) means to prevent further “nature” or “character” formation.
I'll buy that. But it is not part of the "now" of the "yes." As I just said above (about the rock).
Thanks, Icon.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 108 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:00 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|