 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Discussion About Hell, Scripture, Ambiguity, and Other Cool Stuff | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/11/2006 1:14 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom: What guarantee is there that they'll take the first taste? If you have the infinite future to (as Reitan says) just keep shaking the box, then OK. The statistics narrow to zero. Eveybody's gonna make it. But it just seems like positing the needed truth of things that the desired view requires just because they require them and not for any independent reasons. I don't know.
Whatever.
Tom
I'm not suggesting a GUARANTEE. This is why I asked Meph Man if he was a CONVINCED Universalist. You want guarantee? Ask those guys. I just see that LFW is still saved. That is it REASONABLE to ASSUME that when someone comes to the "end of themselves," that they will "test" God and as they begin to see that "tasting of the sweet honey of heaven" is ending the futility of their existence, that they will WANT more and more of it. Again, the rock bottom experience forces it such that the person will come to this point not that it guarantees universalism. Off to work.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/11/2006 1:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Self-orientation, yes. But even the most self-oriented of us admits he needs SOME non-self sources in order to be fulfilled, even Satan. Satan is not of the opinion that all that desires can be found within himself. So, yes, sin is self-orientation in that all that’s sought outside one’s self is sought for the gratification OF SELF. Sinful self-orientation doesn’t mean all that’s sought IS SELF. This is obviously not the case. The most self-seeking among us seek to satisfy self through the use (misuse) of that which lies outside the self.
I admit it’s huge to discover that the truest fulfillment of one’s ‘self’ comes through seeking the good of God and not of self. But that’s different from the mere recognition that one’s ‘self’ is not so self-contained or sufficient as to never need to refer or relate to anything outside one’s self. Maybe I’m entirely missing it. But to say the rock-bottom experience leaves a person totally convinced that the inner resources of one’s ‘self’ (unrelated to anything outside the self) are insufficient to fulfill one’s perceived needs or desires is, I have to admit, not as rare a discovery as you might think.
At the rock-bottom event, one realizes that the ultimate fulfillment of itself CANNOT be met by itself. In other words, they have come to the conclusion that their ultimate fulfillment can NOT come from their perpetual self-seeking or any actions thereof. They HAVE to rely on SOMETHING else for their sense of worth and existence. For their very sense of self. They realize that their own sense of self is INEXTRICABLY LINKED to something (or somethings) outside of itself. The selfish center HAS not held nor CAN it hold. It's a point of ultimate realization. Truly dying to self. They just don't know who or WHAT to come "alive towards" for certain.
The MAIN difference this current model has from the one I had before is that, in this model, they are NOT made ABSOLUTELY AND CLEARLY AWARE that the "something else" is NOTHING SHORT OF God at the point of rock-bottom experience.
Instead of "Let go and let God"...the post-rock bottomers are "letting go" and LOOKING FOR SOMETHING ELSE TO "let"! They eventually come to the conclusion, perhaps very reluctantly, that they need to let GOD.
***************************************
Mephi: 2) It IS the post-mortem evangelism context that assures the universal salvation. That's what makes it rock-bottom" It forces the issue.
Tom: But the conclusion it forces, the knowledge it forces, isn’t unique to rock-bottomers. There really ARE people in this world who come to the conclusion that they don’t possess within themselves the resources needed to address the sense of futility that haunts them. Once this discovery is made, what guarantees the right choices follow? It doesn’t follow in THIS life for those who make that discovery. A lot of them die chasing non-God candidates. So how are your post-mortem folk guaranteed to make the right choice if you admit they’re libertarianly free every one of the finite number of moments they have to chase non-God candidates?
Tom, it would REEEEEALLy be helpful at this point for me to know how YOU conceptualize post-mortem evangelism. How does it work in your mind?
************************************
Mephi: There is no arbitrary "time lapse" on the solidification. It happens as a product of CHOICE and SELF-UNDERSTANDING. This is why we can say that the rock-bottom event STOPS the solidification unto "ultimate harm"!
Tom: OK, then this is what you need to say--
LFW is asymetrical. It's FINITE when exercised Godward (that is, when exercised rightly, it solidifies into irrevocable pro-God compatibilism). But it's INFINITE when exercise in an anti-God direction (viz., when exercise wrongly it cannot solidify into unchanging anti-God compatibilism). An agent really can choose against God forever, but not irrevocably so. So the door is always left open. You're right with Reitan. I'm just wondering how you do the metaphysics of human freedom in this respect--independantly of it needing to be this way to make universalism true.
NO...No...No...No.
Where the context allows,the exercise of LFW tends towards solidification...IN EITHER DIRECTION...with respect to the decision for or against God.
What moves LFW into total solidification (in either direction) are the CONTINUED CHOICES and SELF-UNDERSTANDING of the agent.
If there is a state where total solidification against God CANNOT occur (via rock-bottom experience)...but ALSO where...solidification FOR God is NOT occuring (via no choice yet being made to trust God)...then this state is a kind of LIMBO where habituation may occur in some areas, but NOT in terms of solidification either for or against God
Is this not clear?
******************************
Tom:
What guarantee is there that they'll take the first taste? If you have the infinite future to (as Reitan says) just keep shaking the box, then OK. The statistics narrow to zero. Eveybody's gonna make it. But it just seems like positing the needed truth of things that the desired view requires just because they require them and not for any independent reasons. I don't know.
Nope. It's NOT ad hoc like that. Remember, before I applied Corey's insights to my idea, I blatently said that Reitan's logic really couldn't help the situation. This was because I made the rock-bottom experience COTERMINOUS with an unchangable, CLEAR understanding of God being the "telos" of the rock-bottomers existential longing But after mulling Corey's ideas over, I found (TO MY SURPRISE) that, in making the rock-bottom experience a two-step ordeal, there was a type of "limbo" was created where neither solidification FOR or AGAINST God would occur. Which would allow Reitan's logic to work in the space of that "limbo"
I was just as surprised by this as anyone. Hell, I was gonna go with just calling it "pseudo-love" remember??
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/11/2006 1:57 PM (GMT -6) | | More clarification...
In the post-rock-bottom state, a person can choose NOT to trust God for removal of the futility problem and exist in such a state of not trusting God, but the person can NOT] make the decision necessary to TOTALLY solidify themselves against God...that is, the willed delusion that they truly CAN "will to be themselves" without ultimately yielding to any other force outside of itself, including God. The being solidified against God unchangably believes the LIE that seeking his/her own good at the expense of others' is THE WAY of fulfilling their yearning. They utterly lose the capacity to die to themselves.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Er...um...is the mike still on? Testing...1,2,3....
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/13/2006 1:47 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I suppose the other thing that isn't always so clear in my thinking is somewhere from steps 7-9 (probably mostly 8-9). Maybe this is another one of my "hung up" areas and it MAY BE the stupidest question. It is probably THE biggest hang-up question of them all. I hope I can ask it such that you are not "losing me" here D.
'K
Meph Man said...
Step 8:
At some undetermined time following the rock-bottom experience, the sentient being FREELY CHOOSES to attempt to begin to actualize a sustained pursuit of loving relationship with God as a means of solving the "futility" problem. Consistent love of God may NOT be instantaneous...but the "upward spiral" has begun.
Step 9:
Over time, as the sentient being experiences more and more loving moments, it moves from primarily consciously pursuing the love relationship with God because of one's OWN dispositional actualization...to also consciously pursuing the love relationship for it's own sake.
This is where I begin to ask about the futility of the situation. It seems to me that when you speak of this process, that hell is an existence such that the pursuit to seek a love relationship can go back and forth from loving moments to non-loving moments (the IN-BETWEEN the MORE AND MORE of step 9). that if love is not CONSISTENT then the being could reasonably resort BACK to non-God loving moments thereby continuing the existence of the futility of which it SEEKS to escape. Thus, hell must not be THAT MISERABLE. Futility must not be THAT FUTILE. Therefore the whole process seems like a fluke. Response?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 2:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
This is where I begin to ask about the futility of the situation. It seems to me that when you speak of this process, that hell is an existence such that the pursuit to seek a love relationship can go back and forth from loving moments to non-loving moments (the IN-BETWEEN the MORE AND MORE of step 9). that if love is not CONSISTENT then the being could reasonably resort BACK to non-God loving moments thereby continuing the existence of the futility of which it SEEKS to escape. Thus, hell must not be THAT MISERABLE. Futility must not be THAT FUTILE. Therefore the whole process seems like a fluke. Response?
Good point out of a potential adjustment. Maybe you can say this a better way.
This is not meant to talk about the futility. It's clearly there. It's talking about the PROCESS of truly giving oneself to God without ANY reservation or anxiety. All I wanted to articulate with Steps 8-10 is that, following the leap into trusting God, there is a developmental GROWTH process into becoming a totally loving creature. Moral perfection is NOT instant...and does NOT occur when one takes the leap. There is a process by which the being gives MORE and MORE of itself over to God (and subjectively appropriates more and more of God's love) without any reservation of any type. Solidification INTO God's love operates by choices, experiences of love, and renewed self-understanding in light of those experiences. The post-rock-bottomer is "learning" to love like God loves more and more over time.
So, if you can find a better way to articulate this...go for it.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 2:15 PM (GMT -6) | | I think Corey said something to this effect...and it makes sense...
At the rock-bottom point, the being's epistemic distance to its futility is VERY, VERY close. He KNOWS that he must "die to himself". But this is NOT to say that the being FULLY TRUSTS that God is the one whom he should "come alive". THAT is the "black box" factor. Sure, as the being "tries" God more and more...the more and more he will lose his anxiety and be more RESOLVED that he has indeed made the right choice. But there is a process of LEARNING that demonstrates this to the being.
Does this help?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/14/2006 1:04 AM (GMT -6) | |
Meph Man: This is not meant to talk about the futility. It's clearly there. It's talking about the PROCESS of truly giving oneself to God without ANY reservation or anxiety. All I wanted to articulate with Steps 8-10 is that, following the leap into trusting God, there is a developmental GROWTH process into becoming a totally loving creature. Moral perfection is NOT instant...and does NOT occur when one takes the leap. There is a process by which the being gives MORE and MORE of itself over to God (and subjectively appropriates more and more of God's love) without any reservation of any type. Solidification INTO God's love operates by choices, experiences of love, and renewed self-understanding in light of those experiences. The post-rock-bottomer is "learning" to love like God loves more and more over time.
So, if you can find a better way to articulate this...go for it.
Brandon: OK. I don’t know if there is a better way to articulate it. That’s what I’m hoping YOU can do. Which means that I don’t think this was really helpful.
There is a PROCESS and there is a goal. The process is the (present tense) giving of oneself more and more over to God. The goal is solidification in love—moral perfection. Solidification in love would ENTAIL that one has done this to such a degree in which there would not be ANY reservation or anxiety to do otherwise. As with ALL love relationships, the PROCESS can be one of “ebb and flow.” “Ebbing moments” could possibly be described as the opposite of no reservation or no anxiety. That is, there is no CONSISTENCY toward perfection (unto solidification).
My question is, is that if there are “moments of ebbing” (thus going back retreating back into futility) then it seems to me that the futility would not be as futile as we think. It would seem that the DESIRE for God has to be greater than the desire for futility because we never do those things in which the desire is less than those things we do in which the desire is greater. Soooo….do you see my problem? Even though a being tries God more and more he may go into some “level of remission” because such has not come to FULLY TRUST God. Again, the “level of remission” would be such that it gives the being a “level of comfort” to stay there for some unbeknownst period of time even though one will EVENTUALLY not go into “ultimate harm.”
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/14/2006 1:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
My question is, is that if there are “moments of ebbing” (thus going back retreating back into futility) then it seems to me that the futility would not be as futile as we think. It would seem that the DESIRE for God has to be greater than the desire for futility because we never do those things in which the desire is less than those things we do in which the desire is greater. Soooo….do you see my problem? Even though a being tries God more and more he may go into some “level of remission” because such has not come to FULLY TRUST God. Again, the “level of remission” would be such that it gives the being a “level of comfort” to stay there for some unbeknownst period of time even though one will EVENTUALLY not go into “ultimate harm.”
You seem to make this a choice between desiring God and desiring futility. That's not it, man. The being is trying to choose something that they can CONSISTENTLY TRUST to be "alive to" The being tries God...and trying God WORKS. But will it continue to work?? Will this just be a brief respite that will end up in MORE pain?? The being doesn't know. But over time and experience, the being becomes more and more sure.
Get it?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 1/14/2006 10:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, OK. That makes sense now. No matter which way you look at it, even under this scenario of reservation and anxiety, such that the being could possibly trust something other than God even though God WORKS, the being will eventually find out that God is both trust worthy and the true source of ending futility and finding happiness. Sweet! I was thinking why, if God works, would the being look else where (in those “ebbing moments”). There is still the possibility for this) unless they find some level of comfort in that something else. But such is NOT the case. They will run up against a dead end. The futility is clearly there. Thanks! That is very helpful.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/14/2006 12:11 PM (GMT -6) | | | So...
We have Meph, Corey, and Brandon on the "love train" of EUR (eventual universal reconciliation). I got your ticket, Tom. You ridin' or what? 
People all over the world...
Join hands
Start a love train, love train
People all over the world...
Join hands...
Start a love train, love train
Come on. EVERYBODY sing... | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/14/2006 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/14/2006 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | |
OK. I can see right now I'm not gonna have as much time as I wanted. But let me throw out a couple of issues that I think a purely philosophical approach would need to address.
Meph: Let's say that the ultimate true good of Being Y is existing in an unbroken (and unbreakable) love relationship with Perfectly Loving Being X. It would seem from the definition that X would WANT to do everything in it's proper ability to see Y acheive the unbroken, unbreakable love relationship with X. Let's further say that it is GENUINELY in the proper ability of X to set up Situation Z such that it will be guaranteed that Y can, at some point in it's existence, actually possess it's ultimate true good enduringly. X is aware of Situation Z and it's relationship to the ultimate true good of Y. There is NOTHING that prevents X from setting up Situation Z.
Does it make any sense to say that X could fail to perform Situation Z?
Jeff: OK. The answer to the final question is, I think, NO. But let's look at the points where I think a philosophical devil's advocate might want to poke.
First, the ultimate true good, as defined above, is currently NOT the case. So I wonder how we could prove that X is capable of setting up Z, eventually. We can posit, as you have, reasons why it is being delayed. But these reasons are not proveable, philosophically (to my knowledge), and, consequently, it is difficult to KNOW that X will not be hindered by whatever is hindering X now.
Second, one needs to know WHO Y is. Think about this in terms of your statement about aseity. You say God GRACIOUSLY bestows significance (value?) on us when we could not BE significant (valueable?) on our own. One might ask, then, does God bestow significance ONLY on sentient beings, including animals? If not all conscious and sentient beings (e.g., animals), then would it be all volitional beings? If we say yes to the latter question, only, how can we know this if none of these beings have INTRINSIC significance, and only graciously BESTOWED significance?
Third, even IF God's aseity allows for intrinsic value/significance of the creature in such a way that volitional beings are considered to be INTRINSICALLY significant, how could we philosophically know that God is non-bifurcated in such a way that ALL volitional beings can equally be objects of God's love, independent of ANYTHING the volitional being does volitionally?
So to make this thing work conclusively, it would seem that 2 things must be true:
1) Aseity can not render impossible the intrinsic value of a creature. Otherwise, by limiting the objects of a divinely BESTOWED value/significance (ruling out animals, e.g.), we undermine our ability to determine conclusively WHO the objects of God's love ARE. Maybe this is why hyper-Calvinists have no problem with their view of God's love--because their view of aseity renders it as plausible as any other.
2) Whatever is hindering the ultimate good of all objects of God's love, NOW, must NOT be capable of doing so LATER. So we must know with certainty WHAT causes are hindering God now and that THEY (the causes) will cease to do so eventually. Proving these two things conclusively with philosophical argument, alone, seems difficult to me.
Consequently, when folks like Doc say they hope for universalism but say it falls short of knowledge, I assume they mean something like what I'm arguing above.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/14/2006 8:13:04 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/15/2006 1:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | I've scanned in a couple short chapters from Randy Klassen's book, "What Does the Bible Really Say about Hell." I'd appreciate any comments you may have on this.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 1/15/2006 1:43 AM (GMT -6) | | I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices son
They're one in the same
I must isolate you
Isolate and save you from yourself
- Pet by APC
Is this love?
If we start with the belief that God is defined as perfect love, then we must define perfect love or we just beg the question. But if our definition of love requires protection from bad choices, we must then have some reason for defining love as such or once again we beg the question. All these definitions of who God must be must be rooted in something even if that something is just "I like this idea of perfect love so I'll believe God is defined by it."
Here's my proposal: Instead of arguing from theory (of who God must be) to reality (of who God actually is), why not just stick to faith-based claims of reality? Any theory is going to be based on some faith claim anyway. I suspect that most of us here believe in God as love because of God's revelation of Jesus. So wouldn't it be most appropriate to start by defining God (and love) by Jesus instead of defining God and Jesus by our ideas of what perfect love might be?
Now I'm not an inerrantist by any means, so it seems to me that we can (1) take Jesus' words as they have been passed down to us as true to some extent (interpreting them literally or metaphorically or whatever) or (2) reject the truth of those words. Both choices are perfectly valid, but we must always beware of sculpting the words to fit us. And more to the point, if we are discussing heaven, hell, and univeralism, starting with the idea of love is perfectly acceptable. But if we are specifically discussing the Christian conceptions of heaven and hell, then this idea of love must be defined in terms of Christ. Otherwise it's not really Christian. Starting with an idea and then developing a Christ to fit doesn't fit with the confession that Jesus is Lord. It seems to me that the New Testament, as error-riddled as it is, is still our best source for telling us who Jesus is. It offers a conception of Jesus by which we may test the spirits. For this to fall under the label "Christian," it must be an "exegesis" of some record of who Jesus is which we belief to be reliable. Now maybe this discussion is taking place outside that label, and that's cool. But if it is, it's just an abstract exercise in logic. At least for me.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 1/15/2006 1:04:36 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 705 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:45 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 |
|
|