 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > A Critique of a Critique of Eller's Thesis | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/19/2008 5:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | J: That being the case, I have no reason to believe there is such a thing as divine judgment based on your view. Because I can't imagine why anyone would decide to inflict harm on themselves for their wrong-doing, post-mortem, if they are not doing it now. What would explain it?
Z: During the course of my life I make decisions. Whenever I choose against love (keep a record of wrongs, as Paul says), I tend toward negative solidification. And upon God's act of resurrection, if I have chosen the keeping-records-of-wrongs path - the wide one that leads to destruction - then this will be made known. I very well may be surprised at the consequences of MY (not God's) decision. If I chose neither to love nor to keep a record of wrongs i.e. if I just wanted out, then somehow God honors that choice.
This does not mean that I prefer destruction.
This does not mean that I made a choice after death to harm myself.
This does not mean that God actively destroys me.
This does not mean that God is responsible for my destruction.
None of these things are implied.
During the course of my life, I mail a package. After death God opens that package. If I put a perishable item in the package and it has gotten rotten...
This does not mean that I prefer rot.
This does not mean that I made a choice after death to make the item rot.
This does not mean that God made the item rot.
This does not mean that God is responsible for the rot.
None of these are implied.
J: Then God doesn't judge after all?
Z: It depends what you mean by that. There is a real sense in which I believe God does judge. I do not however believe that God punishes people who break agreements which they never signed. I also think that God is love - which, according to scripture - means that he keeps no record of wrongs i.e. he is forgiving.
J: Then all that language in scripture is saying what, exactly?
Z: As always, if you give me a passage, I'll give you my take. But you've asked a broad question that I can't hope to answer.
J: But it seems inconceivable to me (and most other people, I gather) that I can choose something now that will result in me being ressurected from the dead...
Z: I am one of those people who finds this inconceivable. It is not my position. I believe resurrection is the default and that it is possible to opt out. But we do not cause the resurrection anymore than we cause God to open the door when we knock.
J: And since I know of no one that consciously prefers to be judged in ressurection or knows that future ressurection is a natural consequence of their actions, I don't know what it means to say people choose it, directly or indirectly.
Z: But preference and knowledge of the future has nothing to do with any of this. This is a straw-man. I am NOT claiming that our final state depends on either our preference or our knowledge of the future. When someone does make that claim, I'll be on your side arguing against it. I'm saying we can make choices with incomplete understanding and against our best interests.
J: So I'm trying to figure out how you know what so many don't that justifies what you're reading into the texts.
Z: I'm not claiming certain knowledge. I'm claiming that Jesus is God. Jesus had the most cause to resist evil (he and his people were oppressed and dying). but Jesus submitted to those who crucified him. But that's not even the big scandal. The big scandal is that he continues to do this today. A Hamas suicide bomber injured 13 people today! What did Jesus do about it? Is he unaware? Is his arm too short? What?!? It would seem that the Jesus presented in the text is the same Jesus who lives today. He is acting very consistently. We know that God is not doing evil so that good may result later. We know that God is light and in him there is no darkness. We know that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
It's all very real, very ugly. I'm not surprised that facing the all-too-obvious nonresistance of God is uncommon. Jesus said that his was a narrow way that few would find.
J: So far you seem to be declaring an intuition that can't be explained or analyzed any further.
Z: I'm surprised to hear you say that. If that's how you feel then this conversation should end.
J: By your view, it seems that morality would mean the same thing whether we are created beings or not.
Z: The Father loves the uncreated Son. "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love." This is the morality I advocate. It translates between created and uncreated beings.
J: You want to take the Sermon unconditionally and literal as if anything that contradicts its unconditional interpretation is suspect or to be treated figuratively.
Z: No, I don't. But what I do, which I think you allude to here, is take the whole scripture as it's written. Some parts are conditional, some aren't, some are best taken literally, some aren't. I'm not crazy enough to take the entire Sermon on the Mount literally.
J: How, given that, do you handle Christ's unconditionally-quoted statement (in Luke, I think) that he who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery? Do you say that verse rules out divorce and remarriage for any cause?
Z: I take marriage and divorce to be more than legal activities. A marriage (in the eyes of God) can happen before or after a ceremony. A divorce can happen with or without a certificate (as Jesus pointed out in Matthew). So yes, I am opposed to divorce for any cause. But in the case of unfaithfulness, the unfaithful partner has caused the divorce and it is no sin to formalize what is already true.
J: I was thinking you had earlier said that you think divorce is allowed for fornication. Is that the case?
Z: Divorce is always sin. Signing a certificate which recognizes that divorce has taken place and makes this status official is not necessarily sinful.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/19/2008 5:23:36 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/19/2008 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Z: This does not mean that God is responsible for my destruction.
None of these things are implied.
J: Hopefully we're about to get to what we've been missing. IF one has to be ressurected to life to BE judged, and IF God does the ressurecting, it certainly is true that God is responsible, to SOME extent, for whatever judgment happens after you're ressurected. He doesn't have to be, though. Why does He do it? You'll say because people chose to be ressurected to judgment. I say prove it. I know of no person who can choose to be ressurected to be judged (since they can't ressurect themselves) or even prefers to be. THis is a bald assertion until you tell what you know and how you know it. You weren't born with this knowledge.
Z: So yes, I am opposed to divorce for any cause. But in the case of unfaithfulness, the unfaithful partner has caused the divorce and it is no sin to formalize what is already true.
J: So if my wife commits adultery I'm divorced? If I commit adultery in my heart in the way Christ described, I'm divorced? Then are we commiting fornication if we have relations thereafter, seeing's how we're divorced though we still live together? I don't get it. Christ, in Matt. 19, argues just the opposite; that we are to forgive for adultery rather than harden our hearts and therefore NOT divorce.
Perpetual, unrepentant adultery is another thing altogether. There are certain sins we are "overtaken" in on account of which we restore one another in meekness, considering ourselves lest we be tempted. This includes adultery. But perpetual, unrepentant adultery has nothing to do with being "overtaken" in sin.
You don't seem to distinguish, though. Without doing so, it seems you're saying that if a spouse commits adultery even once, the couple might as well split up, since they are effectually divorced. Is that your claim?
Z: I'm not claiming certain knowledge. I'm claiming that Jesus is God. Jesus had the most cause to resist evil (he and his people were oppressed and dying). but Jesus submitted to those who crucified him. But that's not even the big scandal. The big scandal is that he continues to do this today.
J: It didn't take the incarnation for this so-called scandal, Zach. This had been true for possibly millions of years prior. God RARELY intervened in history in a way anyone would recognize as divine judgment.
J: By your view, it seems that morality would mean the same thing whether we are created beings or not.
Z: The Father loves the uncreated Son. "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love." This is the morality I advocate. It translates between created and uncreated beings.
J: So you don't believe that we EXIST FOR the Son and the Father? This can NOT be true of eternally existing people. To exist FOR someone entails an end or ends as WELL as a beginning of our existence. This doesn't translate to the godhead. The Father doesn't exist FOR the Son, nor the Son FOR the Father, if they always existed. An end implies a final cause, which implies a beginning.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/19/2008 6:18:36 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/20/2008 4:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Last one before I shut up.
J: You'll say because people chose to be ressurected to judgment.
Z: No I wont. I'll say because some people are too stupid and/or lazy and/or stubborn and/or whatever to bother to make any decision at all. God says, "Here's my world, and here's how it works. If it's not to your liking, feel free to return to nonexistence." Now, I lean toward annihilationism. I think it makes the best sense of what the Bible presents us with. So in essence, judgment is nonexistence. It just seems those who are judged will have time to reflect and regret. So call it delayed annihilationism or whatever.
You said, "He doesn't have to be, though. Why does He do it?" So, let's think about this. What if God doesn't resurrect the goats? That's annihilationism isn't it? Without any delay. So the "SOME extent" of God's responsibility is that he is culpable for letting the goats realize what has happened rather then never letting them know. I'll admit that much. I don't think that's inconsistent with love.
J: I know of no person who can choose to be ressurected to be judged (since they can't ressurect themselves) or even prefers to be.
Z: I've repeatedly denied that this is my position. I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I said it over and over that some if not most will not choose at all but will thoughtlessly take the default.
J: So if my wife commits adultery I'm divorced? If I commit adultery in my heart in the way Christ described, I'm divorced?
Z: Yeah. Divorced in the same since that lust = adultery. Come on! Of course lust is not adultery. Adultery has a very specific meaning and it ain't the same as lust! Jesus knew this. But it a very real sense lust IS adultery. In this same real sense adultery IS divorce.
J: Then are we commiting fornication if we have relations thereafter, seeing's how we're divorced though we still live together? I don't get it. Christ, in Matt. 19, argues just the opposite.
Z: Yeah, and I never disagreed with that, did I?
J: ...that we are to forgive for adultery rather than harden our hearts and therefore NOT divorce.
Z: Say what?! What he says in Matt 19 is that it's better not to marry at all. He says that anyone who can abstain from marriage should. I'm not necessarily opposed to what you said; I just don't know where in Matt 19 you are reading it.
J: Perpetual, unrepentant adultery is another thing altogether.
Z: Is this what Jesus says or what your intuition says?
J: You don't seem to distinguish, though.
Z: Take it up with Matthew. He's the one that failed to distinguish between 'marital unfaithfulness' and 'perpetual, unrepentant adultery'. I'm trying to leave my intuition out of it and stick to what the Bible says. Apparently you know better. And apparently you know better because you read the scripture apart from groundless intuition. I'd like to know what it is that makes this distinction pertinent to this passage, because I am certainly too stupid to see it. In fact I can't find any reference at all to adultery which is perpetual or unrepentant. My intuition must be clouding my eyes.
J: Without doing so, it seems you're saying that if a spouse commits adultery even once, the couple might as well split up, since they are effectually divorced. Is that your claim?
Z: No. It is my claim that they HAVE split up. However, it IS my claim that since Jesus said hatred is murder, we should have a funeral and bury alive every person we hate. This is because I read the Sermon on the Mount literally. It is the same literal reading that leads me to believe that our bodies are composed entirely of salt and light.
J: It didn't take the incarnation for this so-called scandal, Zach. This had been true for possibly millions of years prior. God RARELY intervened in history in a way anyone would recognize as divine judgment.
Z: I agree. Even more corroboration!
J: So you don't believe that we EXIST FOR the Son and the Father?
Z: You explain what meaning you've got packed in that three-letter preposition, and I'll tell you if I agree. No, actually I've already decided to shut up.
I say, "The sky is blue." The response is, "No, the sky is not purple!" My jaw drops. Then I have to go blow off steam. I'm just going to skip to that last step for a while.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/20/2008 4:55:04 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/20/2008 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | | Fixing to fly out for a week. I'll reply more fully, then!
Z: So in essence, judgment is nonexistence.
J: That addresses the issues I've raised. By that view, gnashing and weeping of teeth and paying debts that were not forgiven have nothing to do with judgment.
Z: Take it up with Matthew. He's the one that failed to distinguish between 'marital unfaithfulness' and 'perpetual, unrepentant adultery'. I'm trying to leave my intuition out of it and stick to what the Bible says. Apparently you know better. And apparently you know better because you read the scripture apart from groundless intuition. I'd like to know what it is that makes this distinction pertinent to this passage, because I am certainly too stupid to see it. In fact I can't find any reference at all to adultery which is perpetual or unrepentant. My intuition must be clouding my eyes.
J: There's nothing wrong with intuition, Zach. It's just that intuition can be a bit difficult to reconcile with texts. I'm not arguing for intuition in this case. Christ specifically says that Moses gave the one grounds for divorce FOR THE HARDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS. Yet Moses never explicitly said that. Does that make Christ a liar? Of course not.
Christ had just got through (Matt 18) talking about forgiveness being contingent upon forgiving. He says from the beginning, there was no grounds for divorce. The two put together seem to suggest to me that Christ is saying that we ought to forgive even adultery rather than divorce over it. Paul later adds other comments about unbelieving spouses that he claims Christ did not address. Other scriptures say adulterers won't inherit the kingdom of God, and so on.
It's putting all things together that give us a view with distinctions. Everyone does this. I'm not saying I'm right. I just think your view must at least entail multiple sense of divorce to make sense of all the texts. If so, we would need to talk about which sense you see in which text. And I realize you're not as concerned about reconciling the gospel texts with the other NT writings as I am. But that has nothing to do with an intuition I have. It's because I don't how to ground my own certainty in only a subset of those texts. Talk at you next weekend or later.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/20/2008 5:47 PM (GMT -6) | | "I';m not surprised that facing the all too obvious non-resistance of God is uncommon."
From Pacifism to Jihad by J Daryl Charles" Yet another problem is pacifism's tendency to create a nonexistant divide bewteen the sacred and the secular, between monk and magistrate due to its emphasis on speration from the world and abstaining from worldly vocations. COnsequently, it contributes, wittingly or not, to a withdrawal of the church from the world. It prevents among its adherents, or those who are sympathizers, responsible Christian involvment in cultural institutions. Such was a valid concern of Reinhold Niebuhr, who worried that "an ethic of pure non-resistance can have no immediate revelance to any political situation" whatsoever. A related defect, in my opinion, is that religious pacifism gives too little attention to the church's rich and broard history, which affirms, rather than negates, the worth of the soldier and the magistrate alongside all vocations. Many pacifists are content to view themselves as a beleagured (though superior) minority, unwilling to allow the authority of the church's consensual tradition to adjust their minority views, and they do this by donning a "prophetic" mantle. While this mindset will not always lead to an attitude of self-righteousness and prophetic posturing, very often, sadly, it does. This attitude in turn prevents honest and fruitful dialogtue with Christians who disagree."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/29/2008 9:28 AM (GMT -6) | | J: That addresses the issues I've raised. By that view, gnashing and weeping of teeth and paying debts that were not forgiven have nothing to do with judgment.
Z: There is light of a certain frequency which we call 'blue'. Actually, that's not quite right. There is an ambiguous range of light frequencies which is called 'blue'. 'Blue' is a human abstraction, a construct. It is a symbol that corresponds roughly (not precisely) to a kind of light. There can be disagreements at the edge: Is this shirt blue or violet? The problem is not that my skills of observation and categorization are inadequate. The problem is that I'm using categories (blue and violet) which are not clearly defined. If I wanted to get picky, I could precisely define the terms, but even so I'm only making an arbitrary definition.
So judgment. Ananias was the judgment of God according to some. September 11 was the judgment of God according to some. Katrina was the judgment of God. A cancer diagnosis. A flat tire. A headache. Is this shirt blue or violet? The question is not where to draw the line. The question is: Does our understanding of judgment provide us any line-drawing guidelines at all? If the event of God's judgment can be the same event as human sin, then it becomes apparent that we are not using the term with much precision. And this the extent of my view of judgment. I can't say with any certainty what 'judgment' is any more than I can say with certainty what 'blue' is. All I can say is that it's an abstraction that is used so broadly and paradoxically (both natural disasters and human sin are described as God's judgment) that we cannot expect it to be a logically useful term.
So, back to your comment. Sure, "gnashing and weeping of teeth and paying debts that were not forgiven" do have something to do with judgment (if we are using 'judgment' in its broad and loose sense). But I'm trying to speak more precisely so that 'judgment' is the direct intervention of God. In this sense, you're right, my view is that the gnashing and weeping is directly human caused and not God caused.
As for the marriage and divorce stuff, again there is the actual marriage and the actual divorce which may or may not correspond to their legal counterparts. What is marriage? Is it breaking a cup? A financial transaction? The signing of a legal document? I don't think actual marriage is any of these. I think marriage is the joining together of two into one. No priest, justice of the peace, or broken kitchenware required. Likewise, divorce is the separating of one into two. Again, there is a legal counterpart to the actual divorce. A legal married couple can remain legally married, but if one them is unfaithful, there is no actual marriage. Our conceptualizations and abstractions are not the thing itself.
"So Jesus, when is it allowed for actually married people to be legally divorced?"
"Never! Unless they are not actually married but only legally married (i.e. marital unfaithfulness)."
"Wow Jesus, we never considered that. Maybe it's better not to marry."
"No kidding! But don't be too harsh on marriage. Some people are not able to handle this idea, and it's not a matter of life and death."
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/29/2008 1:32:24 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 4/29/2008 10:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Z: There is light of a certain frequency which we call 'blue'. Actually, that's not quite right. There is an ambiguous range of light frequencies which is called 'blue'. 'Blue' is a human abstraction, a construct. It is a symbol that corresponds roughly (not precisely) to a kind of light. There can be disagreements at the edge: Is this shirt blue or violet? The problem is not that my skills of observation and categorization are inadequate. The problem is that I'm using categories (blue and violet) which are not clearly defined. If I wanted to get picky, I could precisely define the terms, but even so I'm only making an arbitrary definition.
Corey: Very well said! Beyond the particulars of this thread, you have described a significant difficulty in our doing theology (or any other modelling, for that matter). We love to name things, but who knows if the labels and categories we come up with refer to anything actual?! Our definitions are products of our own finite minds. Doesn't matter how "precise" they are, they are still arbitrary.
Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/29/2008 9:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Z: I can't say with any certainty what 'judgment' is any more than I can say with certainty what 'blue' is. All I can say is that it's an abstraction that is used so broadly and paradoxically (both natural disasters and human sin are described as God's judgment) that we cannot expect it to be a logically useful term.
J: This actually gets to my personal bottom line. If scripture is actually teaching that pulling a rapist/bully off his victim is evil in the same exact way (i.e., force=anti-love) as the rape/assault is (though possibly to a different extent), then I have no idea what scripture is saying about anything. If it comes down to that, I would try to cease to judge any action whatsoever out of fear that I was judging hypocritically.
Supposing, for the sake of argument, that where little is given, little is required, then if the scripture is that poorly communicated, God, I think, couldn't possibly expect me to have a clue about right-relating. I may be dead wrong. But that's how it really seems to me. Perhaps our epistemologies differ at too fundamental a level to understand each other.
However logically worthless words may actually be, I can not for the life of me see how "depart from me into ... age-abiding torment" is saying something about what people volitionally do to themselves independent of any action on God's/Christ's part.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/10/2008 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Z: No I wont. I'll say because some people are too stupid and/or lazy and/or stubborn and/or whatever to bother to make any decision at all. God says, "Here's my world, and here's how it works. If it's not to your liking, feel free to return to nonexistence." Now, I lean toward annihilationism. I think it makes the best sense of what the Bible presents us with. So in essence, judgment is nonexistence. It just seems those who are judged will have time to reflect and regret. So call it delayed annihilationism or whatever.
You said, "He doesn't have to be, though. Why does He do it?" So, let's think about this. What if God doesn't resurrect the goats? That's annihilationism isn't it? Without any delay. So the "SOME extent" of God's responsibility is that he is culpable for letting the goats realize what has happened rather then never letting them know. I'll admit that much. I don't think that's inconsistent with love.
J: I think I missed here that you really are still distinguishing between the covenanters and the non-covenanters. At first I was thinking you had abandoned that distinction. But what I still don't understand is why God distinguishes between the two at all. If God doesn't hold people responsible because doing so is essentially non-loving (because it is non-remitting), then why ressurect people for the purpose of regret? I don't see the essential difference in divine motive between ressurecting people so they'll regret vs. to just hold them accountable. Both cases still seem to imply a divine intent of suffering don't they?
Now if you want to say the ressurection unto "reflection" is a second chance done with the hope that they'll change their mind, that's different. Is that what you're saying? But if so, why wouldn't the non-covenanters get a second chance? This is D's position, as I understand it. This is why he holds (I think!) that UR is only statistically probable--not certain.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/11/2008 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | | Z: Really, all I'm arguing for is that it is possible for God to allow humans to make irrevocable decisions of eternal weight and that the New Testament strongly hints that it's more than merely a possibility. Once this is granted direct divine judgment becomes logically superfluous.
J: What verses or passages hint at "irrevocable decisions of eternal weight" to you? I think of the verses that sound superficially eternal like, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:46)." Yet neither you nor I belive there will be "eternal" punishment. So I don't know what hints at irrevocable decisions.
Z: And this is quite a relief for me, because I've not been able to convince myself that direct divine judgment can be reconciled with the man I believe to be God without compromising what I believe is essential to his work.
J: How would you reconcile the quantity and distribution of natural evil with his work? Are they unrelated? He spoke of giving his apostles power over poisonous snakes, etc. So they don't seem to be completely unrelated to me.
Z: Now perhaps the love and forgiveness stuff is all Jesus and the Father goes by another ethic (make them cry til they comply).
J: All that this requires is the truth of the statement "Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord." We are not to avenge ourselves. If Christ emptied himself of his equality of God and became a man, then he came under the Law AS A MAN. I don't see the problem. Cause after he "finished" his work, all authority in heavens and earth were given to him. So what he does from henceforth is no longer in the capacity of a man as it was during his incarnation.
All that this distinction requires to be true is two things:
1) Duties are correlative with rights.
2) Duties are determined by capacities.
If these are true, then Christ didn't have the same capacities as a human bond-servant (due to the kenosis) as he does as Lord of all (due to God's exalting him for his obediently accomplished work). Moreover, as a man, he had duties to other men as well as God. As Lord of All, he has no duties to men. Duty presumes a law one must be subject to. Christ did come under the law as a human. But now, his actions are not ones of obedience to any law, but the actions of one in whom the fulness of the godhead now dwells. No law/duty can possibly motivate such a one any more than it could be the explanation of the Father's motives.
Z: But then we've got to either discount Jesus or the gospel writers when they claim that Jesus not only obeys his Father but imitates him.
J: We do imitate him the same way Jesus did. God gives good gifts. We are to do the same. But God also gives natural evil, doesn't He? We should not do that even if we could. God avenges. We are not to do so. We imitate Him precisely where it is humanly fitting to do so. If you can explain how natural evils are good gifts from the Father or that we are to give analogously in that respect, then I think I can better understand your position. Til then, it seems that we can only imitate God in certain ways, and not others.
Z: We'd have to say that the man who refused to resist those who killed his people (the man who is currently refusing to resist the authorities in Myanmar) is not the exact representation of the Father... that there is something missing, something incomplete about the revelation of God in the Son.
J: The revelation would only be incomplete if we are to assume that Jesus meant ABSOLUTE likeness in human and divine action. But we know this can't be true. We're told to help the poor. Does God always help all the poor? Does He always feed the hungry as we are told to do to our enemies? Don't people die of starvation in this world?
Post Edited (Similtude) : 5/11/2008 9:37:44 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/12/2008 1:02 PM (GMT -6) | | J: What verses or passages hint at "irrevocable decisions of eternal weight" to you? I think of the verses that sound superficially eternal like, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:46)." Yet neither you nor I belive there will be "eternal" punishment. So I don't know what hints at irrevocable decisions.
Z: You don't believe in "eternal" punishment. I don't believe in eternal "punishment". So I do read eternity in verses like Matt 25:46.
J: How would you reconcile the quantity and distribution of natural evil with his work? Are they unrelated? He spoke of giving his apostles power over poisonous snakes, etc. So they don't seem to be completely unrelated to me.
Z: The veracity of Mark 16 aside, I don't know. But if it is evil, then it is not caused by God. Maybe I don't understand the question.
J: All that this distinction requires to be true is two things:
1) Duties are correlative with rights.
2) Duties are determined by capacities.
If these are true, then Christ didn't have the same capacities as a human bond-servant (due to the kenosis) as he does as Lord of all (due to God's exalting him for his obediently accomplished work).
Z: I believe kenosis is a matter of attitude and practice not ontology. Christ DID have the same capacities as a human bond-servant. He was God all along.
J: Moreover, as a man, he had duties to other men as well as God. As Lord of All, he has no duties to men.
Z: I believe Jesus lived by an ethic of love before, during, and after the incarnation.
J: But God also gives natural evil, doesn't He?
Z: No. God is light. There is no darkness in him. God is not responsible for evil. It's First John all over.
Time's up. I'll get the rest later.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/14/2008 2:33 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't think I denied that Satan and demons are real entities. I have said that the figurative reading is true, but I don't think I've denied the literal reading. I do think that the literal understanding adds little or nothing to the figurative; for the most part, the literal understanding is logically superfluous. And I'm not aware of any good reason to confidently affirm or deny the literal understanding.
I'm fairly confident my view of natural evil doesn't much inform my other beliefs, because I really don't have natural evil figured out. I don't like the phrase "natural evil", because it is up for debate whether it is either natural or evil.
Natural - Given that we believe all creation is the work of a personal being, what can the word 'natural' possibly mean in this context? Unless we are talking about uncaused randomness I think the word 'natural' is going to cause confusion. What I've always had in mind by 'natural' was reference to meteorological, seismic, and illness-related events. Certainly God has the ability to control these things.
Evil - I think we mean something like 'misfortune' or 'suffering' by this word and not moral evil.
So I'd prefer something less catchy like 'non-humanly caused suffering'. I think that's what most people are driving at with 'natural evil'. And although it's a mouthful, it's more precise and useful.
J: The revelation would only be incomplete if we are to assume that Jesus meant ABSOLUTE likeness in human and divine action. But we know this can't be true. We're told to help the poor. Does God always help all the poor? Does He always feed the hungry as we are told to do to our enemies? Don't people die of starvation in this world?
Z: The degree to which love is possible is the degree to which there is vulnerability. And the degree to which there is vulnerability is the degree to which evil can be done. God has drawn a line; he has granted us a certain ability to love/vulnerability/ability to do evil. There are conceivable comic book acts of evil which we are unable to perform. At one point we are told that language was confused in order to draw a line which marked a limit to creation's ability to perform evil. We are told that the human lifespan was shortened for this purpose as well. Why didn't God draw a more constricting line? I don't know. I trust that in his judgment he made the best choice.
Look at the other extreme. Let's say God decided to limit our capacity for evil to the point that we were unable to insult another person. So how would that work? When I try to insult someone my mouth sticks shut? But when I speak kindness I have the ability to speak? In this scenario, I've become a puppet. We could take it further to evil thoughts. The more God were to restrict our capacity for evil the less of a person we would become. Again, I trust that God chose the right balance.
Poverty and starvation are not primarily issues of 'natural evil.' There is plenty of food, water, shelter, and clothing to go around. We are all richly blessed by God in these areas. Poverty and starvation are primarily the result of sin. And I believe God has made us able to sin. He has drawn the line loosely enough so that we can harm each other to the point of poverty and starvation. Why not exclude this? I don't know. But he must allow some free will and therefore evil. Why allow this particular amount? I don't know. I hope and trust that God has made good decisions.
Natural disasters happen, and I don't know why. (I hesitate to see a personal Satan behind every unpleasant experience). But I'm learning that suffering is not the solidly evil thing I used to think it was. There is a purpose in suffering. Romans 5. In fact the New Testament epistles almost entirely speak of suffering with favorable language. And so perhaps 'non-humanly caused suffering' can be placed in the category of potential blessing.
I commit to saying that God must at least allow 'natural evil'. But I don't know who, if anyone, directly causes it. The OT says God commands the forces of nature, but the OT also says that he commands gentile armies as they commit sin (which directly contradicts the epistle of James). Seeing as how I don't read the OT's take on God's control of history literally, I can't assume that all that is said about God's control of nature is best taken literally. But I'm not ruling it out either.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 5/14/2008 2:40:30 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/16/2008 7:31 PM (GMT -6) | | | These responses were very helpful. So lets analyze down a bit further.
Z: Natural disasters happen, and I don't know why. (I hesitate to see a personal Satan behind every unpleasant experience). But I'm learning that suffering is not the solidly evil thing I used to think it was.
J: Would you say that moral evil could exist apart from suffering? I wouldn't. To my mind, moral evil requires as conditions not only sentience, but the capacity for suffering in particular.
Z: There is a purpose in suffering. Romans 5. In fact the New Testament epistles almost entirely speak of suffering with favorable language. And so perhaps 'non-humanly caused suffering' can be placed in the category of potential blessing.
J: Would you say that all suffering has a purpose? And if so, does the suffering caused by wrong-relating have the purpose of a potential blessing? What would constitute malevolence in God with respect to causing suffering? This matters since we are to imitate Him completely in your view.
Z: I commit to saying that God must at least allow 'natural evil'. But I don't know who, if anyone, directly causes it.
J: Do you allow for the possibility that there are things with causal capacities in our universe that didn't have their origin from God? If so, is there anyway we can have an idea where the dividing line between the two is? If not, does it really make a difference with respect to malevolence in God or humans (who are to imitate God) as to whether suffering is knowingly caused directly or indirectly?
Z: The OT says God commands the forces of nature, but the OT also says that he commands gentile armies as they commit sin (which directly contradicts the epistle of James). Seeing as how I don't read the OT's take on God's control of history literally, I can't assume that all that is said about God's control of nature is best taken literally. But I'm not ruling it out either.
J: Since you're not ruling it out, if God wields nature in a way that He knows will and ultimately does cause suffering to babies and young children, is that God giving good gifts to His human children? If so, or even if it's neutral, does that mean that humans may direct the forces of nature to cause suffering to humans in any conceivable circumstance to imitate God, thus?
Post Edited (Similtude) : 5/16/2008 9:45:19 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/19/2008 11:12 PM (GMT -6) | | J: Would you say that moral evil could exist apart from suffering? I wouldn't. To my mind, moral evil requires as conditions not only sentience, but the capacity for suffering in particular.
Z: Yeah, I'll agree for now. Maybe there is some example of moral evil that did not entail suffering, and if I cross paths with that example I'll change this answer. But I echo what I think I hear you saying. Disobedience in the face of flatly arbitrary commands is alone not moral evil. Perhaps suffering is necessary for evil, but I want to be clear that it is not sufficient.
J: Would you say that all suffering has a purpose?
Z: I'm leaning in the direction of saying all suffering has a purpose i.e. there is no suffering that is hopelessly meaningless. This requires faith on my part. I'm learning to slow down my judgment in that face of particular instances.
J: And if so, does the suffering caused by wrong-relating have the purpose of a potential blessing?
Z: Yes. I think God can bring good from evil; I'm learning to put an 'always' in that sentence, but I'm not exactly comfortable with that yet. If I am ever comfortable with it, it will not be a matter of certain knowledge but faith.
J: What would constitute malevolence in God with respect to causing suffering? This matters since we are to imitate Him completely in your view.
Z: Yeah. I used to see 'causing suffering' as synonymous with 'malevolence' or 'evil'. ***DISCLAIMER*** This is just brainstorming, but this is a good place to brainstorm.*** Perhaps there are two categories of 'causing suffering' which are not malevolent. (At least they're all I can come up with at the moment.) One would be false causation. The fallen person acts in such a way that suffering is inevitable. In such a case the suffering cannot be said to be caused by God but only the characteristics of it. "On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.'" Fighting back causes suffering, but so does love. If we chose to love this enemy, it is evident that the suffering originates with the enemy. The enemy has formed a situation in which suffering is unavoidable (but, notice, purposeful). There could also be the disciplining suffering analogous to parenting. Here all I want to say is if we are dealing with a situation between God and fully formed persons, then discipline but take place within a truly bilateral covenant or it is malevolent, evil. I don't think I need to draw the lines connecting this to our imitation of God. We have the Spirit of Christ in us. Love means the same thing for God as it does for us. Once God's glory was hidden, mysterious, unknowable. Now that glory has been shown to us in the flesh. He has spit in the dirt and rubbed the mud in our eyes so that we can see. No more veils. "I call you friends."
J: Do you allow for the possibility that there are things with causal capacities in our universe that didn't have their origin from God? If so, is there anyway we can have an idea where the dividing line between the two is? If not, does it really make a difference with respect to malevolence in God or humans (who are to imitate God) as to whether suffering is knowingly caused directly or indirectly?
Z: First question: No, there is God and God's creation, nothing else. If not, does it really...? Yes. If not we've God a god of both good and evil. "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." God creates. He 'owns', 'is responsible for' what he creates. (Those are not good words for what I want to say.) But what is mind-blowing about open theism is that it presents the idea that God creates creators. This is freedom. We as creators have the ability to act originally i.e. not as the continuation of a causal chain extending back to God. Inasmuch as our acts of will are 'free', they are 'ours' and not God's. Now, to God be the glory for all things. Nothing is possible apart from his creation and providence. But when I choose to love, it is directly I who love and God loves through me with my permission. My free acts are my 'creation'. I can freely choose to co-create a loving act with God, but the decision to do so is mine. Similarly, if I choose to do evil it is my creation, and all the credit/blame belongs properly to me. My free acts are my 'creation'. I can freely choose to refuse to co-create a loving act with God, and this decision is mine.
J: Since you're not ruling it out, if God wields nature in a way that He knows will and ultimately does cause suffering to babies and young children, is that God giving good gifts to His human children? If so, or even if it's neutral, does that mean that humans may direct the forces of nature to cause suffering to humans in any conceivable circumstance to imitate God, thus?
Z: By not ruling it out I'm saying I don't know if it ever happens. I believe God can control nature, but I haven't made up my mind if he ever does to the demise of babies and young children. My first instinct is to say no, killing is not good, ever ever ever. I'm open to rethinking it. But I am still firmly committed to what I said above about bilateral covenant. On the face of it, killing is bad. If there is a way that killing is not bad, then it cannot simply be arbitrary so that it is legitimate in "any conceivable circumstance." Our first place to look is Jesus, the perfect representation of the Father. What did the perfect representation of the Father do with the forces of nature? How did Jesus respond to those who assumed natural disasters and natural suffering were the work of God?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 5/20/2008 12:49:39 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/26/2008 8:33 PM (GMT -6) | | | Z: By not ruling it out I'm saying I don't know if it ever happens. I believe God can control nature, but I haven't made up my mind if he ever does to the demise of babies and young children. My first instinct is to say no, killing is not good, ever ever ever. I'm open to rethinking it. But I am still firmly committed to what I said above about bilateral covenant. On the face of it, killing is bad. If there is a way that killing is not bad, then it cannot simply be arbitrary so that it is legitimate in "any conceivable circumstance." Our first place to look is Jesus, the perfect representation of the Father. What did the perfect representation of the Father do with the forces of nature? How did Jesus respond to those who assumed natural disasters and natural suffering were the work of God?
J: I want to deal with more, but let's start here. This subject has come up before, but I've never heard a way to get around the implications that many an atheist loves to exploit. You say there is only God and God's creation. This means that all entities in creation have only those capacities that God has granted them. These causal capacities seem to be capable of classification into one of 3 different causal modes: 1) purely indeterministic causality, 2) deterministic causality, and 3) volitional, or self-determining, causality.
It seems to me that only if suffering/death seemingly caused by nature--which is called natural evil, as opposed to moral evil which requires volition as a condition of its existence--is actually volitionally directed, as Greg maintains, can God not be responsible for it. For if no volitional input by creatures was required for nature to kill and cause suffering, then how can God not be the cause of it? He either indirectly brought it about knowingly, or He knowingly risked its occurrence without stopping it when He saw what suffering/death it would result in. What other logical possibility is there?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/27/2008 8:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | OK. Let me try to define moral evil, and then you tell me what you think it is. And we'll back up and go from there.
Moral evil is the intentional diminishing (or risk thereof) of a sentient being's sentient satisfaction when it avails the victim of no known actual (or at least potential) future augmenting of the being's sentient satisfaction that would render the suffering "worth it" to the victim.
E.g., God has made us with nervous systems capable of various kinds of sufferings. But these sufferings are educational in the sense that they provide us information as to what NOT to do so that we can adapt our mode of life to our environment in a way that is free of that suffering in the future. Most people find the satisfaction of continued living worth these necessary pains and aches that are part and parcel of growing up.
But lets say you're born in a village, and then some natural disaster hits that leaves you crippled for life and kills your family. What did that suffering teach you not to do? We could say that it taught you that you shouldn't have lived there. But we can't know that living elsewhere would have been the answer either. Because some other disaster may have hit in the other location you would have lived. You don't have the information to make a decision, and yet you have suffered harm and suffering for which there is no natural healing--your crippled body now functions suboptimally, in a way quite contrary to what seems to be its very design.
But I do know that not putting my hand close to a fire a second time will keep me from getting burnt THAT WAY again. As I understand it, this is why people see normal nervous system pains as distinct from what they call natural evil. Healing typically results from the normal pains and aches that all infants experience.
Now if natural evil is the result of sinful choices by created beings (choices they knew or could have known were sinful, even), God is still not responsible. This is Greg's view. And I may be wrong, but I think this is why Greg takes this view. It's about how moral evil is defined.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 5/27/2008 8:33:29 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/29/2008 1:12 AM (GMT -6) | | J: OK. Let me try to define moral evil, and then you tell me what you think it is. And we'll back up and go from there.
Z: I think the starting place should be that evil is opposed to love which is found in the living person of Jesus, the Sermon, 1 Cor 13, and elsewhere. These are the original data from which the generalizations are built.
J: Moral evil is the intentional diminishing (or risk thereof) of a sentient being's sentient satisfaction when it avails the victim of no known actual (or at least potential) future augmenting of the being's sentient satisfaction that would render the suffering "worth it" to the victim.
Z: Not how I'd put it, but I don't see a problem here. I think I'd speak in different terms and might broaden this somehow.
J: But lets say you're born in a village, and then some natural disaster hits that leaves you crippled for life and kills your family. What did that suffering teach you not to do? We could say that it taught you that you shouldn't have lived there. But we can't know that living elsewhere would have been the answer either. Because some other disaster may have hit in the other location you would have lived. You don't have the information to make a decision, and yet you have suffered harm and suffering for which there is no natural healing--your crippled body now functions suboptimally, in a way quite contrary to what seems to be its very design.
Z: Suffering does not always teach us that we've done something wrong. Why was the man born blind? Not because of sin, but so that God might be glorified. If God and the blind man are seen as equals, then God is unjust in making him blind. But if God is Mr. Miyagi and the blind man is Daniel-san, then things are different. So long as the blind man is given the ability to opt out of his suffering/training, I think God is being just. (Especially considering that those at the bottom of society have an easier time entering the Kingdom.)
(I can see how this might get me in trouble with the imitation idea that I've harped on. I've been reading a lot of Richard Rohr lately. It's made me see the way that God is like a teacher or master and how we are students and apprentices. The imitation can still apply inasmuch as we lead less mature Christians. We cannot lead more mature Christians any more than God can lead those more mature than him. This would not be imitation of God.)
"Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us."
It's not always a matter of learning from mistakes. It is sometimes just a matter of learning from the suffering itself.
J: Now if natural evil is the result of sinful choices by created beings (choices they knew or could have known were sinful, even), God is still not responsible. This is Greg's view. And I may be wrong, but I think this is why Greg takes this view. It's about how moral evil is defined.
Z: I do not grant that "natural evil is the result of sinful choices by created beings". At least not in every case. I think Greg works himself into an impasse by equating suffering with evil (by means of an idea like sentient satisfaction). When I read stories of saints (Francis, Stephen, other martyrs) who smile as the are persecuted, I think suffering and sentient satisfaction can overlap. Paul and Francis agree that suffering with Christ IS joy. And what is joy but ultimate sentient satisfaction?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 5/29/2008 1:25:00 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 97 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:10 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 |
|
|