Tom: It’s BOTH/AND.

Jeff?

Jeff: Right. That's how I see it. D's analogy of the cleaning does bring out an important distinction. God's original intent was for pleasure. But mishaps can occasion certain kinds of motivation of their own via negative feelings. No sense in even positing negative divine feelings if they have no motivating influence in the divine life. Right? What would be the point of positing them in that case? Let Occam do his work.

Exousia: IF someone were to ask me the same question, I would honestly say this:

"I did the ONLY THING left for me to do, given all the relevant factors: I had to compel them to leave. I really wanted them to see things differently. I tried everything I could to help them see. But they refused to do so. So, I used the requisite force to make them leave. I had to do it for the good of everyone involved. I couldn't just let the house get trashed, for that wouldn't be good for the house. I couldn't just let them continue their present course of behavior, because that wouldn't be good for them. Whether they want to believe it or not, I actually did it as much for them (if not more) than I did for myself! I'm hoping that experiencing getting "kicked out" will help them to see where they are and where they CAN be. I have a feeling that they will come to their senses soon. I've let them know that there is always another chance available for them.  But for right now, this was the best choice I could make to help everyone. Tough love...I tell ya."

Tom: Totally agree. That’s what I also said. I just used fewer words. But if one really wanted to fill in all the blanks, what you say is essentially the same thing I said I would offer as an answer.

Exousia: I would SHOWER THEM with unsurpassable love and grace...as I showed them to the door.  And I would see this unfortunate episode as yet another opportunity to display the glory of Christ, in a new fresh way.

Tom: I also, especially given the fact that the people trashing the house are my kids.

Exousia: Operations of opposition. No oppositional stance.

Tom: The disjunct is unintelligible to me. I honestly have zero idea of what “operating” in opposition to X would mean that “standing in opposition to X” would not also mean. At least as I’m thinking, as carefully as I worded the scenario, I honestly don’t see what you’re holding out for. If by “no oppositional stance” you mean you don’t hate or devalue those you’re working to oppose (by throwing them out), then I’d agree. But I’d never express it this way.

Exousia: Maybe it's just our different personalities, man.

Tom: I think that’s a huge part of it. Being a J you want to draw lines and no precisely where a thing begins and ends; nice precisely distinctions. Being a P I’m satisfied with just saying God’s feelings and motivations are complex and always direct actions that are designed with our best interests at heart. Just saying that is good enough for me. I really don’t think we can press into the inner workings of God’s psychology and observe him from the inside out.

Exousia: How do you think that people would reply to my statements? Including the statement about being saddened and disgusted by the waste of potential.

Tom: I think they’d totally get with it, as they would with my affirmation of this same thing. I did incorporate these same concerns. Did you see that?

I'm still baffled by your positing "superfluous emotions in God." Baffled.

Time for lunch at TGI’s Bro!

Tom

This has everything you want...while preserving everything I want.

Deal?

And for clarification, what I meant by "superfluous" is that the negative emotional states are NOT NECESSARY as motivational tools God to work for right-relatedness. That would occur anyway because of God's zeal for right-relatedness. Yes, they serve a function, but not as the major MOTIVATOR for God doing right-relatedness. That's all.

I love you, man.

Post Edited (Exousia) : 1/16/2007 7:52:02 AM (GMT-6)