 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > More Thoughts... | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/6/2006 4:13 PM (GMT -6) |   | Mephi: On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Tom: But this can also be emphasized this way:
“On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
-----------------
Mephi: No one judges a person for being SICK...even if their OWN choices brought about their sickness! ESPECIALLY when THEY realize that THEY are sick in their own ways, too! We tend to want to have COMPASSION upon "sick" people. We usually DON'T on "evil" people.
Tom: Jeff noted that we do judge sick people. And we OUGHT to have compassion on evil people. I try to do this, honestly.
---------------------
Mephi: This is why divine wrath is NOT connected to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of our choices. It's connected to God's DISGUST of the sickness-conducive Das Nichtige that we opt into by our messed-up choices.
Tom: Maybe this is behind our differences. One post I think, “Oh, we’re saying the same thing,” and then latter think “Wait a sec. We’re not saying the same thing.”
Now, to me the “rightness” and “wrongness” of our choices are just you describe as “messed-up.” You don’t like “wrong” but you use “messed-up.” This is a huge gain? You call such choices “messed-up.” That’s just another way of saying they’re “wrong” (or “sinful” or “evil” or whatever). I don’t see ANY difference.
As far as I can see “wrongness of choice” is the same as “messed-up choice.” So I don’t see your point. It’s not connected to the “wrongness” of our choices but it is connected to God’s disgust for the state we get ourselves into by making “messed-up” choices? God’s disgusted with the resulting despair but not the “messed-up” choices that produce such despair? Besides splitting hairs, I don’t know how to REALLY make this distinction. I don’t split “choice” from “despair” this way. To me, it’s one thing: The despair OF choice.
So where’s the “huge gain” to be had in calling our choices “messed-up” instead of “wrong” or “sinful” or “evil”?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/6/2006 10:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Tom: But this can also be emphasized this way:
“On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
You know exegesis, Tom. "a doctor" is to "the righteous", as "the sick" is to "sinners".
The point is still the same.
***************************
Tom:
Jeff noted that we do judge sick people. And we OUGHT to have compassion on evil people. I try to do this, honestly.
We judge sick people BECAUSE we are sick. Deluded.
Right-minded people don't TRY to judge sick people. They just try to understand the sickness, work with it, and work towards healing it, as they can.
And we OUGHT to have compassion on so-called "evil" people because they, LIKE WE, are sick.
******************************
Tom:
Maybe this is behind our differences. One post I think, “Oh, we’re saying the same thing,” and then latter think “Wait a sec. We’re not saying the same thing.”
Now, to me the “rightness” and “wrongness” of our choices are just you describe as “messed-up.” You don’t like “wrong” but you use “messed-up.” This is a huge gain? You call such choices “messed-up.” That’s just another way of saying they’re “wrong” (or “sinful” or “evil” or whatever). I don’t see ANY difference.
As far as I can see “wrongness of choice” is the same as “messed-up choice.” So I don’t see your point. It’s not connected to the “wrongness” of our choices but it is connected to God’s disgust for the state we get ourselves into by making “messed-up” choices? God’s disgusted with the resulting despair but not the “messed-up” choices that produce such despair? Besides splitting hairs, I don’t know how to REALLY make this distinction. I don’t split “choice” from “despair” this way. To me, it’s one thing: The despair OF choice.
Tom, you are really about volition because you find moral responsibility VERY, VERY important. Why? Because somehow, you know that moral responsibility grounds WHY "evil" exists. You know that. You've been trying to figure out HOW that works. But you know THAT it's true. So you are holding on to it like a junkyard dog! 
Unfortunately, many quarters think that there is a direct relationship between "moral responsibility" and "assigning blame" We never ask ourselves this question...
Do you think that moral responsibility was given to us just so that God would have someone to blame if less than helpful choices where made? So that we would know "who to BLAME??"
When we ask the question, it sounds absurd...which should give some clue that something's wrong. I'm not saying that you believe this, Tom. But a lot of people do.
Anyways...
The choices are "messed-up", in that they EMERGE in a context of a dysfunctional posture towards reality. The "PENALTY" for having messed-up choices is the natural ramifications of that choice.
We don't HAVE to add something called "guilt" or "shame" or "rejection"
But we sure add that part on, now don't we?
Technically, Tom, one could say that "messed-up" choices are volitional actions that move one AWAY from accurately reflecting the nature of God...and this would be "missing the mark". There are negative ramifications for missing the mark, for the person and the person's environment. So, there is moral responsibility for these choices...meaning that the person has to be willing to accept the ramifications of their actions. Even though a person becomes compulsively linked to their "messed-up" choices, they are still responsible for the POSTURE TOWARDS REALITY that "leapt" them into the despair. After all, they've had ample "data" to show them that reality (including God) IS trustworthy, even though pain and suffering can exist!
This is a complex reality that saying that "Decision X was wrong" doesn't even begin to touch.
This is why I think the terms "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil" aren't helpful.
****************************
Tom:
So where’s the “huge gain” to be had in calling our choices “messed-up” instead of “wrong” or “sinful” or “evil”?
Because it HELPS us have GRACE towards each other and ourselves. More than "wrong" or "evil"
It's just like the Swastika. Do you know that the Swastika did not ALWAYS exist as a sign for the Nazi belief? It was a SACRED SYMBOL in Hinduism and Buddhism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika It actually meant the sign for well-being!
But now, because of the Holocaust, there is NO WAY that any person in North America would ever try to "bring back" the swastika as meaning "well-being"? The collective emotional response linked to the swastika has largely been set by the experience of the Holocaust It's pretty much useless to truly convey a sense of well-being.
Now...let's look at the term "evil" or "wrong"
Instead of these terms representing the reality of wellness/sickness within a person...these terms usually mean JUDGEMENT AND EXCLUSION...especially in religious circles.
Once a religious person believes that something is "evil"...they've been socialized to REVILE that thing. To the point that sympathy and empathy with the persons considered "evil" is very hard. Even YOUR experience shows this.
"And we OUGHT to have compassion on evil people. I try to do this, honestly."
Why do you think that Selah is having trouble with thinking that God loves Satan...even though there is every theological reason to say this?
Because in conservative Christian circles, we are socialized to DETEST "evil"...and evil persons! So, instead of relying on discernment, because of the HUGE COMPLEXITIES of situations in Creation, we use our truncated experiences and derive "principles" from that anxious truncation...and JUDGE people as evil. And then we TREAT them as if they were evil.
Why do we think that so many people DON'T want feel compassion for their enemies?
Because they feel like their enemies are EVIL and don't deserve such consideration!
The terms "good" and "evil" related to persons is KILLING the North American CHURCH, Tom.
Do you see it? If not, look at the Religious Right and the Religious Left...and THEIR judgemental ways of determining "who" is "evil" The Right thinks that the terrorists are evil. The Left thinks that the RIGHT are being evil.
And the merry-go-round spins...crazily. And the NON-BELIEVERS, Like nogodblog, are watching!
What if they ALL saw themselves as being in despair...and ALL falling short of God's grace?
What is they ALL saw themselves as sick...
And Jesus as the Great Physician.
Do you see, Tom?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/6/2006 10:26 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Meph: Tom, you are really about volition because you find moral responsibility VERY, VERY important. Why? Because somehow, you know that moral responsibility grounds WHY "evil" exists. You know that. You've been trying to figure out HOW that works. But you know THAT it's true. So you are holding on to it like a junkyard dog!
Jeff: For me it gets down to this. There are two ways to explain ramifications for intentional evil. One is to say that the moral order REQUIRES that fitting consequences occur to render it rational--i.e., no one can ultimately improve his/her own lot at the expense of another because harmonious sociality (including glory and the whole bit) is the END of creation. The other way is to say, as you do, "The 'PENALTY' for having messed-up choices is the natural ramifications of that choice." But this can viewed two ways:
1) The natural ramifications are those ramifications that occur in this, pre-mortem life. But I think we all reject that view.
2) The natural ramifications extend to a post-mortem suffering necessary to bring one to their senses and, ultimately, to conversion.
But my issue with 2) is this: If UR is true, then that post-mortem suffering necessary to bring one to their senses must necessarily be effectual. But if it's effectual, it necessarily renders LFW irrelevant, doesn't it? I mean, how can something be necessary AND contingent in the LFW sense of that word? SO, if it's necessary, why the suffering at all? I think you would say that it increases God's aesthetic satisfaction and/or glory somehow. But it that's the case, why is that suffering a natural ramification of their "messed-up" choices?
It's easy to understand natural ramifications in this, pre-mortem life. It's harder to see post-mortem sufferings which inevitably result in conversion as natural ramifications. They seem to be ramifications that are simply chosen to enhance God's sentient satisfaction. This seems a bit problematic to me.
It's easier for to me explain the ramifications of intentional evil in terms of a fitting consequence that is necessary to render the moral order rational. This explains why even believers are said to be accountable for their works. And from that view, the distinction between sick/healthy and good/evil is a valid one--one that simply distinguishes between the voluntary and non-voluntary nature of sickness. But it is one that doesn't rule out total benevolence in divine intent.
That doesn't mean that we are required to talk that distinction up to everyone we converse with. It's just a distinction that is relevant to theological coherence, for me. And this is simply because I can't totally get on board with the "natural ramification" view of penalty, as I understand you to be articulating it.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/6/2006 10:37:23 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/7/2006 2:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
For me it gets down to this. There are two ways to explain ramifications for intentional evil. One is to say that the moral order REQUIRES that fitting consequences occur to render it rational--i.e., no one can ultimately improve his/her own lot at the expense of another because harmonious sociality (including glory and the whole bit) is the END of creation. The other way is to say, as you do, "The 'PENALTY' for having messed-up choices is the natural ramifications of that choice."
We are both correct. It's a "both/and"
**********************************
Jeff:
If UR is true, then that post-mortem suffering necessary to bring one to their senses must necessarily be effectual. But if it's effectual, it necessarily renders LFW irrelevant, doesn't it? I mean, how can something be necessary AND contingent in the LFW sense of that word? SO, if it's necessary, why the suffering at all? I think you would say that it increases God's aesthetic satisfaction and/or glory somehow. But it that's the case, why is that suffering a natural ramification of their "messed-up" choices?
1. LFW is only rendered irrelevant for our purposes if 1) neither God nor Creation underwent eternal ramifications for the misuse of LFW by a sentient creature and 2) the ability and epistemic distance necessary to rationally deliberate were functionally eliminated from the sentient creature. Neither is the case.
2. The suffering of this temporal epoch is not necessary because of God's aesthetic satisfaction. It's not necessary at all. The suffering is INEVITABLE...and it's inevitable because the despair has always been in effect. And we are dealing with FREE, despairing beings! All we see are different ways the despair is played out...and how that causes pain and suffering. Please don't forget that Doc's 6 theses from Satan and the Problem of Evil are still in effect. And they answer this question.
3. Oh. And remember, hell is INDEFINITE, but POTENTIALLY ETERNAL. Meaning that it is NOT 100% certain that everyone will be saved. But there is every reason in the world...a rationally warranted HOPE...that all will actually be saved.
************************
Jeff:
It's easier for to me explain the ramifications of intentional evil in terms of a fitting consequence that is necessary to render the moral order rational. This explains why even believers are said to be accountable for their works.And from that view, the distinction between sick/healthy and good/evil is a valid one--one that simply distinguishes between the voluntary and non-voluntary nature of sickness. But it is one that doesn't rule out total benevolence in divine intent.
1. You would say a "fitting" consequence. I would say a "natural" consequence. And we would BOTH be right...because we both believe that the consequence enables an occasion for rational deliberation...and...does so in comparison to God's nature (which YOU would probably consider the "standard of the moral order" ) We are not disagreeing with each other. Not really.
2. Regarding the bolded statement above. You are right, Jeff. The terms "good/bad" do make sense for the NON-VOLUNTARY nature of the sickness. After all, God did call the Creation "good!" My problem is with the way "good/evil" is used for the VOLUNTARY nature of the sickness (ie in PERSONS and personal relationships!)
But I do NOT think that "evil" is a useful term anymore.
Not after we have terms like "Axis of Evil"
This articulates my concern better than I could...
Is Evil A Useful Term?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil#Is_evil_a_useful_term.3F
I even like the term "militant ignorance" more than "evil" right now!
Even if we want to say that people BECOME their choices, then it really becomes even more of a reason to use the term SICKNESS, particularly when we speak of persons who consistently live out of despair.
I say that we SCRAP the use of the word "evil", especially in the JUDGING function of talking about our interpretations of people and events.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/7/2006 2:30:09 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/7/2006 2:13 AM (GMT -6) | | The Kingdom of God is like little children...before they get socialized into craziness by crazy adults and harsh situations.
Children can be full of trust and wonder.
I can imagine them running up to Jesus and playing in his lap...
While the despairing religious leaders were scheming to have him killed.
Yeah...
Little kids don't care about social status, ethnicity difference, or any crazy stuff like that.
They just want to have fun with each other.
And our societies just keep putting millstones around their own necks...
By polluting the open minds of our children...
With OUR despair and nihilism...
As we tell them to shop till they drop...and look pretty so they can be popular...
Until the eating disorder/body image disorder facilities swell for young boys and girls.
We've sown the wind.
We will reap the whirlwind.
Lord, help us.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/7/2006 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't have a problem with changing vocabulary, per se. I just think it's important to articulate somehow what we see as differences in accountability and the distinct grounds of those differences in accountability. All I'm saying about post-mortem suffering is this: I tend to think that fitting/natural consequences will be meted out fully; not might be meted out fully unless the person converts before they are completed. I've never understood you to be saying that, though.
And my point about the irrelevance of post-mortem volition in conversion was only about the post-mortem providence. To me, whether God simply shines the light in the hearts of post-mortem individuals or inflicts suffering on them to bring them to their senses is not important. What is important, to my mind, is that they really do see the error of their ways and experience bona fide heart change--accompanied by the joy and gratefulness that naturally follows therefrom.
Once we enter the eternal state, our only LFW choices will be aesthetic/intellectual/etc anyway--not moral choices. In that sense, I see volitional choice in the pre-mortem world as important for the temporal aspect of Christ's reign and glory. Because those LFW choices can fit one to reign/inherit with him in that temporal reign--and fit one to experience the glory associated with IT. The eternal state is something altogether different, I think, in the purpose of the Father, because it will not entail moral choice which leads to corruption and death.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/7/2006 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
I don't have a problem with changing vocabulary, per se. I just think it's important to articulate somehow what we see as differences in accountability and the distinct grounds of those differences in accountability. All I'm saying about post-mortem suffering is this: I tend to think that fitting/natural consequences will be meted out fully; not might be meted out fully unless the person converts before they are completed. I've never understood you to be saying that, though.
Clarification. Are you saying that it's possible that a being could have MADE the "heart change" but STILL be experiencing "hell" in order to receive full consequence that they "deserve"? In other words, are you saying that if a person's "sentence" in hell can be LONGER than what it takes to rehabilitate them?
If so, this introduces a punitive effect that I completely disagree with. Remember that the "debt" has been paid FULLY by Christ. God's disgust with sin was dealt with at that point. "Hell" is only the time when their will be a painful awareness of how unlike the Kingdom a person has made themselves. I don't believe hell is RETRIBUTIVE or PUNITIVE. Are you saying that it is?
In my mind, what "let the punishment fit the crime" means is that the amount of pain suffered is EXACTLY the requisite amount needed to bring about heart-change. If a person's heart has been hardened by sin, to that extent (and to that extent ONLY) does the pain continue. It is not based on some abstract principle that God SETS and then says..."Ok, your heart has changed...but you have 10 years on your sentence" No way.
*******************************
Jeff:
And my point about the irrelevance of post-mortem volition in conversion was only about the post-mortem providence. To me, whether God simply shines the light in the hearts of post-mortem individuals or inflicts suffering on them to bring them to their senses is not important. What is important, to my mind, is that they really do see the error of their ways and experience bona fide heart change--accompanied by the joy and gratefulness that naturally follows therefrom.
That's what happens beginning at the rock-bottom experience.
********************************
Jeff:
Once we enter the eternal state, our only LFW choices will be aesthetic/intellectual/etc anyway--not moral choices. In that sense, I see volitional choice in the pre-mortem world as important for the temporal aspect of Christ's reign and glory. Because those LFW choices can fit one to reign/inherit with him in that temporal reign--and fit one to experience the glory associated with IT.The eternal state is something altogether different, I think, in the purpose of the Father, because it will not entail moral choice which leads to corruption and death.
I agree with the bolded part.
Something else. The ONLY REAL "moral" choice that we make is our POSTURE before reality (including God). Every other "sinful" choice we make from that point onward is a symptom of the disease that our posture has placed us in.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/7/2006 8:35:22 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/7/2006 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't at all see what the concern is. Really I don't. I don't see the overwhelming need to exchange words.
In the end, ya'll, no ONE word will express what we will need to say to people. Whatever words you use, the world's f*ked up enough to need to hear and see it a thousand different ways before they'll get it. And the fact is it's almost always SEEING it demonstrated in us (as opposed to HEARING our defense of this or that) that makes the connection for them. And on how we demonstrate it (non-judgmenetally, lovingly, sacrifically, etc.) I think we're in agreement. I just continue to use the terms 'good' and 'evil' and let the living demonstration put the lie to people's mistaken notions of these things so that they come to think in new and accurate ways about what good and evil are. Mephi thinks this is hopeless (because as far as I can tell he actually agrees that the words 'good' and 'evil' mean what messed-up people think they mean) and advocates dumping the terms and describing the same living demonstration of the Kingdom in entirely new terms. I'm like...whatever.
For better or worse the words 'good' and 'evil' are out there, they're in peoples' heads, even if they have less than accurate understandings of these words, you'll end up having to relate the new words and meanings you use to the words and meanings they're functioning with. If you want to change something THIS fundamental about a language SO pervasive and established, good luck. I think it's easier to use established lingo and let people discover, "Hey, how you live and how you're using 'good' and 'evil' intrigue me because I'm not used to thinking of these terms in such ways. What's up?" With Mephi they'll say, "Hey, how you live and the funky language you use to talk about things intrigue me because I'm not used to thinking in such terms. What's up?" This is a HUGE shift?
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/7/2006 9:31:30 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/7/2006 8:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
For better or worse the words 'good' and 'evil' are out there, they're in peoples' heads, even if they have less than accurate understandings of these words, you'll end up having to relate the new words and meanings you use to the words and meanings they're functioning with.
Can you please help me with this, Tom? I feel like this is very, very imporatant. I know that you don't see it. It's probably just me. But can you help me try to find new wording? I really believe that the term "evil" is not helpful.
I tell you this. I have removed "evil" from my personal language. I will NEVER use that word in my own life. I understand that it's helpful to use it, given certain sociolinguistic concerns, but I will NOT use it otherwise.
I will never AGAIN call a person evil.
Never.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/7/2006 8:57:59 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/7/2006 8:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Clarification. Are you saying that it's possible that a being could have MADE the "heart change" but STILL be experiencing "hell" in order to receive full consequence that they "deserve"? In other words, are you saying that if a person's "sentence" in hell can be LONGER than what it takes to rehabilitate them?
If so, this introduces a punitive effect that I completely disagree with. Remember that the "debt" has been paid FULLY by Christ. God's disgust with sin was dealt with at that point. "Hell" is only the time when their will be a painful awareness of how unlike the Kingdom a person has made themselves. I don't believe hell is RETRIBUTIVE or PUNITIVE. Are you saying that it is?
Jeff: Great!! You finally see what I'm saying. YES, I think fitting consequences are RETRIBUTIVE. Definitely. I see no philosophical problem with this. All it means to me is that the moral order IS an order. No one can ultimately enhance one's own well-being at the expense of another. Retribution GUARANTEES this.
If retribution is a problem for the repentant, why is scripture full of language that indicates even believers will receive recompense for their works (negative and positive)? Philosophically speaking, what is LFW without its correlative accountability?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/7/2006 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Meph: The correlative accountability exists because the being has to ACKNOWLEDGE the damage that they've done to God's contingent expression by their actions...and deal with the PAIN associated with that. When they are FINALLY able to trust that God will accept them despite all of the damage they've done (See the repentence of Peter vs Judas' despair), then the move of repentence begins.
Jeff: I think this can be logically consistent so long as any damage repented of in this life will not have any accountability, post-mortem. And I see no reason to assume that a person could not ACKNOWLEDGE the damage in this life. Would you agree? But regardless, I see no problem with an inevitable works-accountability.
Meph: I would like for you, if you would, to describe what "moral order" means to you. Go deep with it. What grounds the moral order? How is it adminstrated? What does the moral order look like?
Jeff: Let me quote a couple of 19th century philosophers that I think articulate my intuition pretty clearly:
From The Philosophical Basis of Theism by Samuel Harris:
A person's Good consists in his harmony with himself, with God the Supreme Reason, and with the constitution of the universe. His will is in harmony with his Reason, and all his desires and passions under the power of love are brought into harmony with one another. He is in harmony with God. The universe, physical and spiritual, is the progressive expression or revelation of the archetypal thoughts of God. As such it must be good. Man is not an isolated ego and cannot work out his own good in independent individualism. He belongs to the universal system, physical and spiritual, and his well-being consists essentially in his harmony with the system of which he is a part, and with the Wisdom and Love which evermore are embodying themselves in it.
From The Elements of Moral Science by Noah Porter:
"It should never be forgotten, that, in forming and interpreting...special rules of duty, we not only may, but we must, assume that the universe of related and moral beings is constituted and maintained in the interests of rational and moral order, and that the general and special laws which control each and all must act in harmony... We not only may, but we must, assume that the impulses and affections which impel to action are FITTED AND INTENDED FOR HARMONIOUS AND CONCURRENT ACTIVITY WITH ONE ANOTHER..."
I agree with these authors, that God does not in any way prefer suffering over its absence (much less gratuitous suffering). So insomuch as the "universe of related and moral beings is constituted and maintained in the interests of rational and moral order," I see no problem with just/fitting recompense being required as a correlative of love to assure the rationality of the system. The very notion of hypocrisy, even, is that no one has the right to expect of another (in analogous circumstances) what they are not willing to do themselves (show no mercy, receive no mercy).
NO moral being is ever expected to sacrifice his/her own well-being for another's. Indeed, God Himself does no such thing. Christ sacrifices himself, YES. But he also GAINS for himself by doing so. He endured the shame for the joy set before him. Christ is better off, ultimately, for having sacrificed. The sufferings of this present age aren't worthy to be compared with the glory we will share. Love seeks not its own. But that doesn't mean that there is no interest for God in loving others. There IS. Love (i.e., God) however, is willing to suffer to assure the rationality and harmony/balance of the moral order He has created. In doing so, He assures that there is always an interest for all moral beings in choosing benevolently. And I think just consequences, meted out from Christ the Judge, are simply a correlative aspect of that maintenance/assurance.
Sentient beings, who are motivated by pain and pleasure, must necessarily have such an interest to see the rationality of the moral order. At first this motivation may be enhanced by fear of the Lord (the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom), in respect for His crown rights so to speak. But as we attain, by use of LFW, more benevolent character, we literally become more benevolent naturally. It becomes second-nature, and we begin to be motivated by the aesthetic beauty of the moral order, also. So we are willing to sacrifice to maintain the pleasure derived merely from that beauty. This is why people will instinctively jump off into cold water with no premeditation to save someone. But even this pleasure is an interest, for any pleasure that motivates is an interest to sentient beings.
Consequently, I think the biblical language about recompense for both benevolent and non-benevolent works is philosophically coherent with an essentially loving Creator. Because judgment is correlative with love in the kind of moral system we inhabit. It's not an add-on or appendage TO love. It's necessary to rationally motivate rational, sentient beings to act in the interest of HARMONY with other sentient beings.
Apart from this rational motivation, epistemic distance is too great to even comprehend the moral order. This is why the vast majority of humans see this intuitively. It is much less intuitive to most people to see things from your perspective. Which basically means that the very moral order that they perceive is non-existent. If scripture says the atonement renders God just in justifying unto eternal life those who believe, I leave it at that. I don't assume it means anything more than that. Just recompense can still apply to works since Christ is the MASTER of us all. We still need motivation to do good works even when we're justified unto eternal life. And even for believers, the fear of the Lord (as recompenser) is a clean motivation. God doesn't expect new believers to be motivated ONLY by aesthetic beauty. Even Christ endured suffering for the FUTURE joy he would experience--not any present aesthetic beauty. And we are told he was PERFECTED in those sufferings.
Philosophically I think the main point is this. Would the world be a more benevolent place if people were convinced that there would be no guaranteed consequences for their malevolent actions? I think it wouldn't be. I think that's why we have government--to motivate those who are undeterred by post-mortem consequences. But I know of many a non-devout person who IS motivated by post-mortem consequences, even though their grasp of that judgment is much too limited. The certainty of judgment, then, DOES have benevolent effects even though it occurs after the damage is done by those who don't heed it.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/7/2006 11:33:50 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/7/2006 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | You have articulated things very well, Jeff. I appreciate it.
Some of my thoughts...
With the fear of the Lord. It is great as a BEGINNING place...but we are to move beyond that...to the point where we have God's "law" in our hearts.
You say:
Philosophically I think the main point is this. Would the world be a more benevolent place if people were convinced that there would be no guaranteed consequences for their malevolent actions? I think it wouldn't be. I think that's why we have government--to motivate those who are undeterred by post-mortem consequences. But I know of many a non-devout person who IS motivated by post-mortem consequences, even though their grasp of that judgment is much too limited. The certainty of judgment, then, DOES have benevolent effects even though it occurs after the damage is done by those who don't heed it.
What you describe is very much like why Paul says the "law" was GOOD.
But what was Paul's perspective on that good moral law...
"For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers. And it is for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
The moral law, I believe, is meant to LEAD us to a place where the moral law is NO LONGER BINDING as a deontological duty. It was meant to motivate us into a higher way of living to where we wouldn't need it personally anymore.
The moral law, in my mind, is nothing short of the precepts of REALITY. It is the case that Creation is essentially relational such that zero-sum games do not authentically exist, relationally speaking. We have just been FOOLED into believing that they do. And the ARTICULATION of this moral law is used FOR LAWBREAKERS in just the way Paul describes.
But...
When a person becomes more like Jesus, as Paul says, the Law is NO LONGER NECESSARY for that person. This person will live in God's reality moment-by-moment, living a life of WISDOM.
The whole idea of retributive justice is based on the "eye for an eye" type thinking. It has PRACTICAL and HELPFUL ramifications for lawbreakers, yes. For behavioral control and other matters. But it is NOT helpful or even necessary for the person who has Christ living through her. And I sure don't see why retributive justice would be necessary POST-MORTEM.
Retributive Justice
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retributive_justice
The coming of the law was DIVINE ACCOMODATION to our fallen state.
Jesus and Paul moved BEYOND that.
We are to have the law written on our hearts.
Am I saying the retributive justice is altogether bad. Nope. Just like Paul didn't say that the Law was bad.
What I am saying is that we may be falling into an error if we think that God's accommodation to our sinfulness is the EXACT WAY that post-mortem judgement operates.
Just my opinion.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/7/2006 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Actually, here is where we can let the Lord speak.
If there is ANY STATEMENT that really incarnates the meaning of retributive justice is is this:
"Eye for an eye...and tooth for a tooth"
Exodus 21:22-25
If people are fighting and a pregnant woman is hit and gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
This REALLY gets at the heart of what retributive justice is all about.
What does Jesus say?
Matthew 5:38-42
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Jesus COMPLETELY SUBVERTS the idea of retributive justice. Why?
Because Jesus understand the relational nature of reality...and that "returning evil with good" ACTUALLY creates occasions for personal transformation for the oppressor. Retributive justive doesn't DO this. It just makes sure that so-called "wrongs" are "righted"...and that there is a deterrent from doing such things. It does NOT have the power to transform the lawbreakers. (This is what Paul KEPT SAYING!!!) Why do we think that Jesus said that the Sabbath was MADE FOR humans...and not humans for the Sabbath.
We were never meant to live life always under some deontological PRINCIPLE or STANDARD that we try to follow or live up to.
We're talking accommodation to stiff-necked people.
Why did Jesus say that God allowed Moses to do the certificate of divorce BECAUSE OF the hardness of their hearts?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/7/2006 12:13:26 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/7/2006 12:22 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Mephi: I would say that God and Mother Teresa are "beautiful" because they promote Shalom.
Tom: Let try once more to explain why I’m finding so much of this vocabulary exchange pointless.
It’s just me, but I honestly think, Mephi, that the word—just the word—“beauty” faces the same uphill climb to commend itself as an adequate way of mapping the realities we’re talking about. You have to do just as much work from the sidelines explaining and qualifying and disassociating YOUR meaning from all the meanings people automatically bring to a word like “beauty.” For example, I could argue that most people upon hearing just the word “beauty” think of exactly what we DON'T want them to think of: putting yourself in the position of feeling that THEY are the judge about what’s beautiful and not beautiful. Some people find Monet’s work beautiful. Some find it ugly. Some people find the paintings of Salvador Dali beautiful. Some find them disgusting. When you say “beauty” a lot of people, maybe most, will think of something that’s entirely a relative matter of personal taste that THEY judge or determine. I think you’ll have to do a lot MORE explaining to people to get them on board with “beauty” than you would have to explain “good” in such a way that avoids the misconceptions people bring with them to the term “good.” But even if not, even if it's 50/50, my point's made. Big deal.
Now, I really like the word “beauty.” But it took a while, a journey, to see it. But I don’t have problems using “good.” In fact, right now I see “good” and “beauty” as synonyms. I think getting people to see that is far better than conceding the term “good” as hopelessly lost to us and abandoning it.
Let’s use all the words we can. Let’s make the map as diverse and rich as we can so that whoever picks it up will find something that points them to God in a way that’s meaningful.
But believe me, people who admire Mother Teresa are NOT going to find your refusal to call her “good” very helpful. Most people will say, “Yeah, sure, she’s beautiful, her life is beautiful. Isn’t that good?” which just shows that people DO employ the term "good" in right ways. But you’ll have to go into a metaphysical discussion explaining why you think “good” isn’t “beautiful” and why we shouldn’t use “good.” Sorry Mephi. I just keep scratching my head on this one.
ALL language is a mixed bag. ALL of it represents some distortion and corruption and some accuracy and truth—that’s because that’s what WE are. So I say, ask people what they think and mean, then go from there. Explain what you mean, then go from there.
I imagine you’ll end up fighting the temptation to harden your categories, which will make discussion even more difficult. If you’re so passionate about never using the term “evil” but are part of a community of faith that does use it, you’ll STILL have to do what I’m saying you just decide to do anyhow—explain your terms relative to other terms. It’s just too deep.
I’m not saying some language adjustments aren’t important or even necessary. In the Middle East I don’t call myself a “Christian.” There’s too much bad history and misunderstanding going on in the Muslim’s head to deal with. If I say I’m a “Christian” there’s just no way he’s going to understand anything close to what I mean. Now, perhaps you think the average person in America upon hearing the word “good” thinks of something SO FAR removed, SO inaccurate and distorted, that you just can’t use the word in any situation without wasting a huge amount of time explaining the differences. I don’t think the average person is SO FAR gone on this that they can’t fairly easily be brought to adjust it. There’s the additional danger that in abandoning “good” you condemn whatever right ideas people associate with the word and in embracing “beauty” to describe what you’re talking about you affirm whatever wrong ideas people will uncritically transfer from the word “beautiful.”
I say let’s focus on having CONVERSATIONS with people. And conversations mean something of their agenda and something of our agenda will influence what words we end up using. Each conversation will be a bit different. Let’s be flexible and well-equipped to discuss things in terms others find meaningful. I might go with “beauty” in a lot of cases, but I’d never argue philosophically for any absolute vocabulary.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/7/2006 12:34:58 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/7/2006 12:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I think you’ll have to do a lot MORE explaining to people to get them on board with “beauty” than you would have to explain “good” in such a way that avoids the misconceptions people bring with them to the term “good.”
God's really smart.
What was one of those 5 theological trends that you saw emerging in the future, Tom?
Who is the deceased theologian that everyone's trying to study right now...the one that Selah's really into? What was his thing?
What is David Bentley Hart's thing?
Who is the currently-popular, worldwide-known Minnesota theologian whose sermons get downloaded by the thousands in a week?
What is his WHOLE THEOLOGY grounded on? (Hint: God's aseity)
Is it "GOOD" of is it "BEAUTY"
Hmmm...
***************************
Tom:
There’s the additional danger that in abandoning “good” you condemn whatever right ideas people associate with the word and in embracing “beauty” to describe what you’re talking about you affirm whatever wrong ideas people will uncritically transfer to the word “beautiful.”
Dude, I've not say that the terms GOOD or BAD cannot be used for NON-PERSONAL situations. See what I said to Jefscott. From a PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, I understand what he's saying. I'm not saying never use the terms "good" or "bad" (even though I think that living in wisdom and discernment removes any need for this.)
I just think that the term "evil" when talking about PERSONS especially isn't helpful.
****************************
Tom:
I say let’s focus on having CONVERSATIONS with people. And conversations mean something of their agenda and something of our agenda will influence what words we end up using. Each conversation will be a bit different. Let’s be flexible and well-equipped to discuss things in terms others find meaningful. I might go with “beauty” in a lot of cases, but I’d never argue philosophically for any absolute vocabulary.
What's your concern, Tom? I'm feeling a deep intensity from you. I may just be oversensitive right now. What's up? Seriously.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/7/2006 12:40:20 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 128 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:37 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 |
|
|