 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > sustenance | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/13/2006 10:00 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/13/2006 10:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok.
Can we get SOME interaction here?
No red herrings.
I'll repost so as to get a response...
---------------------------------------------------
If...
It's genuinely possible for God to create angels such that they can repent...there's NOTHING STOPPING God from doing this...why wouldn't God do so if God knew that this would be instrumental to expanding his glorification?
There would be no reason at all. None that would be consonant with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, infinitely-intelligent, all-loving, aesthetically-satisfied, triune God who genuinely desires that ALL be saved that CAN be saved.
Thus, in the absence of such reason...
I say that it's reasonable to say that God DOES create angels such that they can repent.
Thus, rendering the eventual universal reconciliation for all sapient/sentient beings who are able to internalize and glorify God from their hearts.
This would include angels.
Fallen angels.
Satan.
Now, given all relevant considerations, would I be reasonable in coming to my conclusion about God creating angels in such a way that ulitimate self-destruction is impossible (ie. angels can repent)?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 9/14/2006 6:27 AM (GMT -6) | | | Sorry for the the delay... got sucked into a vortex yesterday. Life.
Meph: Given all relevant considerations, would I be reasonable in coming to my conclusion about God creating angels in such a way that ulitimate self-destruction is impossible (ie. angels can repent)?
Corey: You know what I'm going to say, the hard-core 'P' that I am... I never have confidence that I've taken into account "all relevant considerations". I know it drives you nuts, but sometimes the best I can do is to say it's not out of the question. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I sincerely don't know that I've considered enough to make a conclusion.
My 'T' side will agree that the argument
P1. God will not pass up any any opportunity for glory
P2. Angelic reconciliation is an opportunity for glory
C. God will obtain angelic reconciliation
is a valid argument, and it is one's rational duty to accept the conclusion it if the premises are true.
However my 'N' side still senses that there are important pieces of the puzzle that are not on the table in this argument. Here's where I really love Whitehead's ideas about Importance, and how any formal system necessarily excludes important notions.
More specifically, I'm still considering my original line of thinking, that rather than 'glory' being the main motivator for God, it should be 'love' instead. Then the argument looks more like:
P1. God will not pass up any any opportunity for love
P2. Angelic reconciliation is an opportunity for love
C. God will obtain angelic reconciliation
and I have questions then about P2. I'm honestly not sure that demons are capable of ever loving God. I expect you'll respond that to love God and to glorify God are closely tied, which I'm sure is true. But while I do think all of creation glorifies God (or at least will), I don't know that all of creation can love God. See what I mean?
My intuitions draw from the analogy that Adam did not find any suitable partner in the beasts. Neither does God find any other suitable partner to be his Bride; he needed a creature that is "bone of my bone" and all that... imago dei. Post Edited (Corey) : 9/14/2006 6:44:28 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 9/14/2006 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Thinking some more... there are echoes of the classic ontological argument to be found here
P1. God will not pass up any any opportunity for glory
P2. Angelic reconciliation is an opportunity for glory
C. God will obtain angelic reconciliation
Probably too paraphrased, but doesn't this seem a bit like, "The greatest conceivable reality is X, therefore X must obtain."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/14/2006 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
You know what I'm going to say, the hard-core 'P' that I am... I never have confidence that I've considered "all relevant considerations". I know it drives you nuts, but sometimes the best I can do is to say it's not out of the question. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I sincerely don't know that I've considered enough to make a conclusion.
My 'T' side will agree that the argument
P1. God will not pass up any any opportunity for glory
P2. Angelic reconciliation is an opportunity for glory
C. God will obtain angelic reconciliation
is a valid argument, and it is one's rational duty to accept the conclusion it if the premises are true.
However my 'N' side still senses that there are important pieces of the puzzle that are not on the table in this argument. Here's where I really love Whitehead's ideas about Importance, and how any formal system necessarily excludes important notions.
LOL! Great stuff.
First of all, I really like the way that you honed that argument out. Very cool. Way to go. 
Second, I know that sometimes I seem like I'm pushing. (a typical "J" behavior) The main reason that I do so is because I'm looking for disconfirmation. (My top two Strengthsfinder themes are Input and Learner). This mixed with my ENFJ peferences means that I like to do HEAVY dialogue and question-asking with other people and different resources to hone and/or destroy my ideas. I figure that the more points of view I can consider, the stronger ground I'm on. This is why I wanted that leeway for POW on the other thread. I knew that he'd have access to other things that were probably not on my radar that could INFORM my perspective...if not outright blow it out of the water. So I usually say stuff like this:
Here's my thoughts...blah, blah, blah. Now does this seem crazy to you? Does this make sense? What doesn't make sense about it? What DOES make sense about it? What are the hardest things to reconcile with this thing? etc. Then the answers lead to MORE questions...
I have a preference for a very extraverted method of processing new ideas. From a workbook on this phenomenon.
Combinatinon of Energy and External Orientations: Dealing with Change or New Ideas
IJ: Decisive Introverts
When changes are proposed, they check them out against their internal perceptions (data or big picture). If the changes "fit" they move quickly to implement them. If the changes don't fit, they dig in their heels and become unmovable opponents.
IP: Adaptable Introverts
When changes are proposed, they are curious and seek information. Then they assess the information with their internal judgement (values or logical principles) Their information seeking appears adaptable, but they more ahead only in their own time--after they have decided.
EP: Adaptable Extraverts
When changes are proposed, they consults their networks, talk to people, find out what everyone thinks. If the changes allow room for their creativity and action, they gather resources and try to energize everyone to implement the changes.
EJ: Decisive Extraverts
When changes are proposed, they apply their judgment (logic or values) out loud by questioning. Then, if their questions are answered, they move quickly to plan, organize, and implement the change.
One of the reasons that I like this board is that we engage these issues deeply. In other words, I feel like I can get HELPFUL feedback here. Hence, all the question asking and idea tossing.
Third, about the "angels loving God" thing. I'm willing to leave "wiggle room" in this system and say that it MAY be possible (by whatever reason) that angels cannot LOVE God. Perhaps they are wired such that they can only worship, value, and honor God...but not have loving relationship with God. I'm willing to say that this MAY be true. The issue, though, is that God DOES get glory from angels doing that. God gets some measure of glory from personal, relational beings honoring him from their hearts. Angels crying "Holy, Holy, Holy" DOES glorify God...and God would want as many angels with this disposition as possible! Even if we say that they can never have loving relationship with God! If this is true, then we can postulate an ABSOLUTE difference between humans and angels (what the issue seems to be coming down to...to me) insofar as saying that only human beings have the innate capacity to LOVE God as well as HONOR God...while angels can only HONOR God.
In other words, the "wiggle room" would allow SOME people to say that God does not have the exact TYPE of divine/creature relationship with angels...that God does with human beings.
Would this "wiggle room" help people like Selah, do you think?
This does NOT mean that God cannot LOVE angels. Including Satan. I am NOT willing to bend on that, at this point. It doesn't make sense to say that there is a all-loving God who relates to all PERSONAL BEINGS out of his perfect ad intra existence of perfect love (this is what the idea of God's contingent expression actually MEANS!)...and then turn around and say that there are some personal beings in Creation that God cannot love. That's just outright contradiction to me.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/14/2006 7:12:15 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/14/2006 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Thinking some more... there are echoes of the classic ontological argument to be found here
P1. God will not pass up any any opportunity for glory
P2. Angelic reconciliation is an opportunity for glory
C. God will obtain angelic reconciliation
Probably too paraphrased, but doesn't this seem a bit like, "The greatest conceivable reality is X, therefore X must obtain."
YES! YES! YES! YES!
You saw it!
I didn't know exactly how to articulate it....but YES it has the exact same "feel."
To admit the POSSIBILITY exists is, in effect, to admit that it MUST be actuality.
That's why I'm so convinced about this.
YES! Great show!
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/14/2006 7:05:52 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/14/2006 7:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: The issue, though, is that God DOES get glory from angels doing that. God gets some measure of glory from personal, relational beings honoring him from their hearts. Angels crying "Holy, Holy, Holy" DOES glorify God...and God would want as many angels with this disposition as possible!
Corey: But couldn't we conceive of zillions of other cases by which God "gets some measure of glory"? Should we say that all these obtain too?
When speaking about personal beings...and only personal beings can do this...they have the ability to make God the CENTRAL HONORIFIC FIGURE in their lives...and determine their lives by God. Angels and humans can do this. But one could argue that only HUMANS can say "Abba, Father" for only HUMAN have the Spirit of adoption. So, humans can have a loving relationship with a divine "parent" as well as making God the central honorific figure in their lives.
The ability to make God the central honorific figure of one's existence, I would argue, is the highest measure of glory to God a personal being can give...outside of LOVING God on top of that. Loving God is the highest form of glorification to God. Honoring God as God from the heart (supposedly without loving God) would be a close second, in my mind.
God is most glorified in personal beings who are most satisfied in God.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/14/2006 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
The aspect I'm interested in the story is that only a "flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone" -- a shared "image", if you will -- was suitable for meaningful relationship. Doesn't this give some level of insight of what it takes to deeply relate?
Well, that kinda makes sense. Relationship deals with IDENTIFICATION. As much as we can relate to other animals, the relationship can only go so far. Why? Because animals cannot fully identify with what we experience as human beings. We would need someone who COULD do this...if we were to have the deeper forms of intimacy.
This is what makes the Incarnation so wonderful. God understood this very important aspect of relationality and decided to totally IDENTIFY with the human experience in order to have such a relationship with humanity.
Again, we could say that the "image" provides a way that we can identify with God...as well as the way that we can say "Abba, Father"
But...
Let's not forget that angels are SPIRIT PERSONAL BEINGS...like God. So there is some manner of identification there as well.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/14/2006 7:31:04 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/14/2006 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm...
Lemme hit that HARDER...because of the SK readers we have here.
Let's recall the the ability to despair is ONLY POSSIBLE by personal, spirit-bearing beings. SK makes that very clear. He also makes very clear that even SATAN despairs. Which means that Satan sins before God.
All I'm saying is that God has wired angels such that, if they fall, their despair...at some point...can be removed such that...in relating themselves to themselves, and in willing to BE themselves before God, they rest transparently in the Power that created them.
ONLY personal beings can do this! And it glorifies God.
And I'm saying that God wants ALL beings who can do this to do this.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 9/14/2006 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Now, let's go back.
P1. God will not pass up any any opportunity for glory
P2. Angelic reconciliation is an opportunity for glory
C. God will obtain angelic reconciliation How about:
P1. God will not pass up any opportunity for glory.
P2. All people serving and obeying God from birth is the greatest opportunity for God's glory.
C. God will obtain all people serving and obeying God from birth.
P1. God will not pass up any opportunity for glory.
P2. No child will go to bed hungry today is the greatest opportunity for God's glory.
C. God will obtain that no child will go to bed hungry today.
I like the power of this technique. But does it describe reality?
never say you're bitter, jack
bitter makes the worst things
come back
| | Back to Top | | |
| 279 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:23 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 |
|
|