Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Some "Good News"

Forum Quick Jump

152 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/6/2007 3:45 PM (GMT -6)

Corey:
Here's a description of how *I* might do this (now, remember I'm a kinesthetic, I literally FEEL things... internal auditory is secondary, and internal imagery is tertiary). Say the bully at school injustly smacks my beloved daughter. Internally I can feel my blood pressure rising when I hear of it, I can feel a certain tension in my calves and leg muscles, a clenching that wants to kick something. "That is just WRONG!" I say to myself.

This sort of experience is what I would call 'anger'.

Ok, then.

Say the bully at school smacks your daughter she tells you about it. She says that she's ok and everything. She's just relaying what happened.

Can you imagine you're FIRST and ONLY THOUGHT about the event being this:

Man, how hurt that bully must be to try to hit my daughter like that! Someone needs to help that kid!

Can you imagine this?

Could you imagine moving from that thought to asking your daughter more about this bully so that you can 1) pray for them and 2) find out how to help your daughter navigate such a difficult situation.

So, you can your daughter calmly discuss the situation, form a tentative action plan, and then pray together for the bully?

Can you imagine this happening and NOT anger?

Would this activity be MORE or LESS Godlike...than experiencing ANGER in this situation?

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

Therefore (YOU) go and introduce all peoples into the Way, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and intstructing them in following everything I have commanded you. (Great Commandments!)

And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 1/6/2007 4:06 PM (GMT -6)

Exousia: Say the bully at school smacks your daughter she tells you about it. She says that she's ok and everything. She's just relaying what happened.

Corey: This scenario is less emotionally charged than what I had in mind. If my daughter's okay, there's not as much corresponding intensity in my reaction.

Exousia: Can you imagine you're FIRST and ONLY THOUGHT about the event being this: Man, how hurt that bully must be to try to hit my daughter like that! Someone needs to help that kid! Can you imagine this?

Corey: No. I can't imagine having ONLY ONE THOUGHT about the event, or any event. I was just slowing down the playback to show my initial condition upon encountering a manifest injustice. The thoughts you've described here would come a little later for me. The question of how to relate to the bully is a DIFFERENT consideration than the recognition of my emotional response to the injustice.

I would suggest, however, that my emotional intensity will affect the degree to which I respond in relation to the bully. So it seems that 'anger' (as I use the term) can be a constructive energy when properly channeled, and when it is subordinate to upbuilding love.

Post Edited (Corey) : 1/6/2007 3:12:34 PM (GMT-6)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/6/2007 4:15 PM (GMT -6)

Corey:
This scenario is less emotionally charged than what I had in mind. If my daughter's okay, there's not as much corresponding intensity in my reaction.

Hey, turn the emotional charge all the way up, then.

Let's say you've learned that your daughter was brutally raped and in the hospital in a coma, but in stable condition.

Now, let's think about things.

Imagine...

Now, at THIS POINT, you think to yourself...with reference to the assailant...

Man, how hurt and broken that person must be to rape my my daughter like that! Someone needs to help that person! Before he continues hurting himself and others like this!

In other words, you are thinking about the situation in terms of all of the parties being hurt by this interaction.

And because of your LOVE for the assailant (and your daughter), you decide to make sure that the assailant is held responsible for his actions.

If you DO NOT GET ANGRY AT ANY TIME about this situation,

...are you MORE or LESS God-like?

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/6/2007 4:21 PM (GMT -6)

It seems like you are saying that a Christlike person (ie someone who lives in perfect love) CANNOT relate to injustice properly WITHOUT experiencing some form of anger?

Is that what you are saying?

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 1/6/2007 4:34 PM (GMT -6)

I'm just saying I believe that anger is a God-given emotional indicator that injustice (misrelation) is being encountered. In fact, I'd say that anger is an emotional affirmation of righteousness! When I'm angry, I'm basically just saying THINGS AREN'T RIGHT HERE!

So... yes. If a person doesn't respond emotionally and oppositionally to injustice, this would seem to be a dysfunction.

Here's what's ironic to me right now... I'm a 'T' affirming this emotion, and you're an 'F' arguing against it!

Post Edited (Corey) : 1/6/2007 3:40:21 PM (GMT-6)

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 1/6/2007 4:45 PM (GMT -6)

For me, to not experience a sense of outrage (anger) at my daughter's brutal rape would be a profound misrelation in itself. My internal emotional state would not be affirming the intensity of the misrelation that has just occurred.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/6/2007 4:46 PM (GMT -6)

Corey:
I'm just saying I believe that anger is a God-given emotional indicator that injustice (misrelation) is being encountered. In fact, I'd say that anger is an emotional affirmation of righteousness! When I'm angry, I'm basically just saying THINGS AREN'T RIGHT HERE!

So... yes. If a person doesn't respond emotionally and oppositionally to injustice, this would seem to be a dysfunction.

Hmmmm...

So, you ARE saying that a Christlike person (ie someone who lives in perfect love) CANNOT relate to injustice properly WITHOUT experiencing some form of anger.

Ok, then. Let's see what Tom has to say about this. Tom?

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/6/2007 4:49 PM (GMT -6)

Corey:
For me, to not experience a sense of outrage (anger) at my daughter's brutal rape would be a profound misrelation in itself.

Ok. So, in your mind, for a person NOT to experience a sense of OUTRAGE (anger) at a brutal rape of a loved one is a misrelation. It is not enough to be empathetically aware of the deep privation of the event as well as the terrible pain caused to all parties. It is not enough to work passionately and consistently for healing for all parties. One must experience outrage in this situation.

Is that correct?

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 1/6/2007 4:54 PM (GMT -6)

Well, maybe there's a semantic dissonance happening here. When I say 'anger' or 'outrage', this is just a label for being appropriately empathetically aware of the deep privation of the event as well as the terrible pain caused to all parties. Why can't I use 'anger' as this label? For me, it does NOT entail a misrelation to the offender.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/6/2007 5:00 PM (GMT -6)

Corey:
Well, maybe there's a semantic dissonance happening here. When I say 'anger' or 'outrage', this is just a label for being appropriately empathetically aware of the deep privation of the event as well as the terrible pain caused to all parties. Why can't I use 'anger' as this label? For me, it does NOT entail a misrelation to the offender.

What I was describing has NO oppositional/"over-against" emotional content whatsoever. I thought that you said that, in YOUR view, anger DOES have oppositional emotional content. There is an "offended" and "offender"...and a sense of offense.

Did I have that right?

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 1/6/2007 5:03 PM (GMT -6)

Okay. In my view, anger DOES have an oppositional component toward the triggering misrelation (the offense, not the offender). Yes.

P.S. ... another "3": the offender, the offense, the offended.

Post Edited (Corey) : 1/6/2007 4:06:50 PM (GMT-6)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/6/2007 5:11 PM (GMT -6)

Corey,

Help me get this.

Why would God take misrelation OFFENSIVELY? Doesn't LOVE not take offense?

Why would God feel like misrelation warrants a feeling of OPPOSITION/"OVER-AGAINST" from God towards the misrelation?

I am SOOOOO not understanding.

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 1/6/2007 5:17 PM (GMT -6)

"Love COVERS a multitude of sins." I don't think that means that love doesn't emotionally register the impact of the sin. The covering is a subsequent action. (Not sure SK would agree to this... let's find out. He does talk in various places about carrying the heavy burden lightly; it IS heavy.)

In the hypothetical context here, I was thinking of my raped daughter as being the offended one, not God. God, as a third party to the offense, nonetheless can (rightfully, I think) experience anger over the misrelation just as I as a father could experience anger over the rape, even though I'm not the one who was raped. God would simply be emotionally affirming that this was not right!

Post Edited (Corey) : 1/6/2007 5:14:54 PM (GMT-6)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/6/2007 10:21 PM (GMT -6)

Exousia: God is FOR all beings. Because of this, God is FOR justice.

But none of this requires that God have an internalized feeling of OPPOSITION or "OVER-AGAINST-ness" towards injustice or those who do injustice.

See what I'm saying?

Jeff: What I hear you saying is that you have a problem with anger/wrath because it is associated with the idea of ill-desert. And it seems that you see ill-desert as implying "over-against-ness." I don't see this. Ill-desert, to my mind, simply means that moral deliberation has to be rational deliberation. Which, in turn, means that we have a stake in what we do since our actions impact others--others whose interest is our interest. But it wouldn't be our interest if there was no ill-desert. If you want to say that God requires rehabilitation post-mortem apart from ill-desert, then your view seems to be the less benevolent one.

Why, e.g., would God require suffering of someone if they didn't deserve it? How, IOW, can we say that God is for us if He requires suffering of us unnecessarily? And why is the suffering of rehabilitation necessary if God has no need of forgiveness, even? Why doesn't He just make everybody solidified into holiness after Christ delivers up the kingdom to Him without all the unnecessary suffering? What's the point of the suffering?

Regardless, the idea of wrath/anger as a mere feeling is not problematic at all with respect to God's benevolent actions/thoughts. It seems to me, it is only possibly problematic if we are to assume God has only two feelings--one positive and one negative.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/6/2007 10:27:35 PM (GMT-6)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/6/2007 10:59 PM (GMT -6)

jefscott said...

1. I've seen "wrath of the lamb" translated "zeal" -- a term used at the time for military commanders of determined intensions.

2. From a friend's blog:

. . .

Jesus became incarnate -- or “en-fleshed” -- in order to overcome the “disaster of the ants,” to be sure. The world and all the Created Universe is heading for an End Moment, when the Uncreated Light of God will overwhelm everything, and transform all that participates in God’s love into eternal glory. All that rejects God’s love … everyone that does not repent and seek His Grace … will be permitted to spiral down into a smaller and smaller, private and passionate existence (if you could call it that), forever shrinking into grudges, bitter memories, and rehearsals of “it might have been …”; or “if only I could have gotten a lucky break …”; or “I could’ve done it my way, but something always got in my way.”

The meaning of hell

This is the Orthodox teaching about Hell. No one is pre-destined to go there. The only ones who do are those who refused their destiny of communion with God, who refused His forgiveness, and who preferred the death of isolation to the community of the Trinity and all the Saints.

(o)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 1/6/2007 11:00 PM (GMT -6)

google it if you want to read the whole thing

(o)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/7/2007 12:48 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff,

1) What is "ill-desert"?
2) Is it consonant with perfect love?

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/7/2007 12:55 AM (GMT -6)

Yo. I'm reading some stuff. I tell you what. I can't believe that there are people who actually believe that God actually cares about who's PRAISEWORTHY and who's BLAMEWORTHY. That God's justice is like the crazy NONSENSE we see here...

Oh well...

This world is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO crazy.

Up is down. Left is right. Black is white.

This world IS run by Satan. It has to be.

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/7/2007 8:34 AM (GMT -6)

Exousia: Jeff,

1) What is "ill-desert"?
2) Is it consonant with perfect love?

Jeff: I'll do them in order:

1) As I understand the moral order, it requires as one of its conditions, that my highest good is consistent with and conducive to the highest good of all other sentient, volitional beings. This seems to imply to me that:

a) When I augment my neighbor's good, I necessarily augment my own.

b) When I decrement my neighbor's good, I necessarily decrement my own.

c) When I knowingly bring suffering to my neighbor to increase my own sentient satisfaction in this life, I must, if there is a moral order, be held accountable post-mortem for that choice. Otherwise, one can augment his own sentient satisfaction by knowingly harming one's neighbor.

c) is what I think peope mean by ill-desert. It's simply that accountability that is required to account for a moral order that renders moral deliberation as rational deliberation. IOW, D., those consequences that constitute what it means to be accountable/responsible are not appendages to the moral order--they are inherent in it.

The only consequences of sins of ignorance, as I understand it, is death--not a decrease in sentient satisfaction. So the only way I can see how ill-desert is an erroneous notion is if it is literally impossible in this life to increase one's sentient satisfaction at another's expense. Many people, including me, think such a SofA is possible. Do you?

2) As I've defined ill-desert, it not only seems consonant with perfect love, it seems literally entailed in the idea of perfect love, given the kind of moral order we live in. Without ill-desert, I can't even conceive of a moral order unless it is inevitable that a person's knowing deprivations of his neighbor are accounted for in this life. That's why I see no difference in your rehabilitation view and the traditional view, except that the traditional view doesn't entail suffering for sins of ignorance, whereas your view seems to. IOW, your view has God requiring suffering for things the traditional view doesn't. The traditional view only entails accountability for what "is given." Where little or nothing is given, little or nothing is required.

Exousia: Yo. I'm reading some stuff. I tell you what. I can't believe that there are people who actually believe that God actually cares about who's PRAISEWORTHY and who's BLAMEWORTHY. That God's justice is like the crazy NONSENSE we see here...

Oh well...

This world is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO crazy.

Up is down. Left is right. Black is white.

This world IS run by Satan. It has to be.

Jeff: Hey, bro. You made it perfectly clear on the first post of this thread that you think most Christians, including me, are crazy. I really don't see the point in beating a dead horse. Do me a favor: just hang with me and respond to my posts. So far you have either read something into my posts or avoided responding to the parts where I explain how I conceive of what "feeling only" means. I promise I will try to keep an open mind. So far, I don't see the huge disparity in our views like you do. I see them as being very close.

That's why I'm really trying to help you see that there is no point in constantly insulting your brethren. Why can't we live with a little bit of difference? I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm asking you to tone down the insults for people who might visit this site. Personally, I take no offence to your insults. I consider us all family here, arguing as families do. But newcomers won't necessarily see it that way.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/7/2007 8:28:30 AM (GMT-6)

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/7/2007 9:34 AM (GMT -6)

One more thing, D. Does your view of rehabilitation have anything to do with the notion of accountability/responsibility? If so, your view DOES entail ill-desert, as I think most people conceive of it. And if so, how do you articulate what you see as the difference? To say that one is BLAMEWORTHY means, to me, nothing more or less than being accountable/responsible (via some kind of unpleasant consequences) for a misrelating that such a one had sufficient knowledge and ability to prevent.

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/7/2007 9:50 AM (GMT -6)

I think I finally understand what Exousia might me trying to say. Tell me if I'm right, D:

You are thinking that the traditional view entails the idea that God receives pleasure from the suffering of negative consequences for transgression, right? I don't see where the Bible ever says or implies this. It does seem to imply that divine pleasure can be felt while the suffering of consequences is being experienced. But I don't see that that pleasure is derived from the suffering itself.

Any pleasure that God or Christ will receive from meting out consequences will be occasioned by the movement of the person from deception to enlightenment. As Paul says, "every mouth will be stopped." All the self-deceit and rationalizations for sin will be removed. The minds of the transgressors will be enlightened. They will begin to intellectually relate to Christ accurately. I think it will be such positive movement in the transgressors that God might receive pleasure from--not the mere suffering that constitutes the consequence of accountability. God's empathetic nature is such that He can never take pleasure in suffering, per se.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/7/2007 10:12 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff:
Hey, bro. You made it perfectly clear on the first post of this thread that you think most Christians, including me, are crazy. I really don't see the point in beating a dead horse. Do me a favor: just hang with me and respond to my posts. So far you have either read something into my posts or avoided responding to the parts where I explain how I conceive of what "feeling only" means. I promise I will try to keep an open mind. So far, I don't see the huge disparity in our views like you do. I see them as being very close.

That's why I'm really trying to help you see that there is no point in constantly insulting your brethren. Why can't we live with a little bit of difference? I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm asking you to tone down the insults for people who might visit this site. Personally, I take no offence to your insults. I consider us all family here, arguing as families do. But newcomers won't necessarily see it that way.

Doing this first...and briefly.

Why would I want to "insult my brethren (and sisters)", Jeff? It doesn't even make sense to insult anyone for any reason.

I thought that I was making a statement about what I read and what I honestly have a hard time believing. Honestly! I had absolutely no internal intention to insult anyone. That doesn't even make any sense to me anymore. But obviously I've said something that can be taken as an insult.

For that, I apologize to any who are offended. I was not meaning to insult anyone. Just really say my amazement. So, please forgive me.

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 1/7/2007 10:37 AM (GMT -6)

Exousia: I thought that I was making a statement about what I read and what I honestly have a hard time believing. Honestly! I had absolutely no internal intention to insult anyone.

Jeff: I honestly believe you, D. But look at these words and see if they don't seem to imply more than a difficulty to believe or understand another point of view:

Yo. I'm reading some stuff. I tell you what. I can't believe that there are people who actually believe that God actually cares about who's PRAISEWORTHY and who's BLAMEWORTHY. That God's justice is like the crazy NONSENSE we see here...

Oh well...

This world is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO crazy.

Up is down. Left is right. Black is white.

This world IS run by Satan. It has to be.

I honestly have no ill-feelings about this. I know you get exhausted like the rest of us trying to articulate something we can understand. I don't even mind how these words sound so far as you apply them to me. It's other people that I'm concerned about. I know from having corresponded with one visitor to this site that such language can be a show-stopper. They might be more sensitive than we are. I'm just saying, let's not expect people to read our minds and hearts.

The botttom line is this. It's OK to believe people are dead wrong in their thinking. I just don't think it's right to express emotional exasperation that sounds like you think a person is too intellectually incompetent to reason with. When I'm taking the time to respond and clarify my position, just hang with me. Think what you will about how crazy you think I am. I just don't see how posting it is conducive to further discussion. In fact, when I hear language like this, it sounds like you see us as being polar opposites in thought. I find this surprising. I think we're very close in our understanding of love and accountability. I even think much of our difference is semantic, only.

I've added a few more posts. I would really appreciate it if you would help me understand what I'm missing. Try to explain to me how a mere feeling can be OVER-AGAINST. As I understand feelings, they can be positive or negative; they can vary in intensity; but they can not be "for" or "against" other beings since feelings are not conscious, to my mind. Persons are conscious of feelings, but feelings, themselves, are not conscious. And I don't see how something unconscious can be for or against something.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/7/2007 1:59 PM (GMT -6)

Jeff:
As I understand the moral order, it requires as one of its conditions, that my highest good is consistent with and conducive to the highest good of all other sentient, volitional beings. This seems to imply to me that:

a) When I augment my neighbor's good, I necessarily augment my own.
b) When I decrement my neighbor's good, I necessarily decrement my own.
c) When I knowingly bring suffering to my neighbor to increase my own sentient satisfaction in this life, I must, if there is a moral order, be held accountable post-mortem for that choice. Otherwise, one can augment his own sentient satisfaction by knowingly harming one's neighbor.

c) is what I think peope mean by ill-desert. It's simply that accountability that is required to account for a moral order that renders moral deliberation as rational deliberation. IOW, D., those consequences that constitute what it means to be accountable/responsible are not appendages to the moral order--they are inherent in it.

I understand a and b.

c is not making sense to me.

Maybe this is why.

So the only way I can see how ill-desert is an erroneous notion is if it is literally impossible in this life to increase one's sentient satisfaction at another's expense.

I do believe it's impossible. That's probably our issue.

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 1/7/2007 2:03 PM (GMT -6)

This is what I understand.

For GROWTH to happen, one must acknowledge TRUTH.

To acknowledge TRUTH in the most helpful way for GROWTH, RESPONSIBILITY has to be taken for actions done.

Taking RESPONSIBILITY helps free people from LIES.

It's all for GROWTH and RE-ALIGNMENT in my mind.

From my point of view, suffering is not necessary for people to take responsibility for past actions. Suffering can actually be EXTRANEOUS to the normal process. All that is necessary is acknowledgement of truth and taking responsibility as part of that.

From my standpoint, it's all about THERAPEUTIC HEALING...and which is a way of being people into CONSONANCE WITH REALITY.

Hmm....

What is a "moral order" again? Seriously. I'm even getting lost on THAT.

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.

And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."

152 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:33 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual