Tom: I agree. Well, I at least want to begin by assuming he remembers everything. But this isn't a process insight. All your traditional theists would insist on this as well.

Jeff: Yeah, I realize that's pretty traditional. But I don't think traditionalists would necessarily say that God eternally feels some unpleasantness over past events, would they? Knowing a thing is one thing: feeling bad about that knowledge is another. I had never assumed that and still see no need to assume it. But I see how it makes the logic of Meph's argument work.

Tom: And I think the eternal consequences for missed opportunities and evil choices have to extend beyond God's remembering them (and grieving what could have been). The consequences have to endure in what agents actually become and remain forever; i.e., we will not ALL reflect the same level of beauty.

Jeff: OK, but reflecting different intensities of beauty still just results in different degrees of pleasure, right? Meph is saying God eternally experiences displeasure because of the past. I hope that's not true. And I don't see why UR would require it.

I tend to think that the golden rule is the practical approach to solving temporal problems. If that entails having enough kids that results in speeding up global warming, I would say God can't be against it. We've already been through an ice age and I don't hear anyone blaming humans for that. God was big enough to stop the ice age but didn't.

But I have no problem with saying we might all have to change our life style independent of how many people there are.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/9/2006 12:16:20 PM (GMT-5)

Meph: Just because Hitler ends up turning his life to God in the end doesn't mean that there haven't been serious negative ramifications for creation due to Hitler's activity. Yes, having Hitler's love at the very, very end of everything is "worth it" to God...but that is not to say that there hasn't been heavy cost...to Hitler, creation, and to God!

Corey: What are the ETERNAL negative ramifications of Hitler's activity? It all seems temporal to me, except for the loss of potential beauty. But I don't see any lasting ugliness.

Post Edited (Corey) : 7/9/2006 1:04:00 PM (GMT-5)

Jeff: Yeah, I realize that's pretty traditional. But I don't think traditionalists would necessarily say that God eternally feels some unpleasantness over past events, would they?

Tom: I don’t know. Some probably think about it. If they do, why can’t it be dealt with by assuming God, being a pretty healthy person, is able to get over things?

Jeff: OK, but reflecting different intensities of beauty still just results in different degrees of pleasure, right? Meph is saying God eternally experiences displeasure because of the past. I hope that's not true. And I don't see why UR would require it.

Tom: Mephi believes the world, its goods and evils, are relatively meaningless to God. They can’t possibly penetrate the unsurpassable beauty of triune relationality. If that’s what God is, then whatever he thinks or feels (or however he thinks or feels it) in response to the world is a freely chosen response, grace at work, and doesn’t undermine his perfections (so far as I can see).

How much beauty we reflect is partly determined by us, and we live with it forever. That way the consequences of our choices have real integrity (for us and God).

Are you thinking this all puts a damper on our and God’s experience of heaven? Why? Why can’t there be a joy found on the other side of facing up responsibly to whatever consequences we have to live with after we’re redeemed?

Jeff: I tend to think that the golden rule is the practical approach to solving temporal problems. If that entails having enough kids that results in speeding up global warming, I would say God can't be against it. We've already been through an ice age and I don't hear anyone blaming humans for that. God was big enough to stop the ice age but didn't.

Tom: Yeah! This all had something to do with population didn’t it!

I don’t think there’s any way we could ever know enough to judge just how human population growth and the consequent pollution (for example) works for or against God’s purposes. Remember Mephi won’t let us say whether or not ANY specific evil is an instance of God’s sacrificing a rook, God’s being complicit in evil. Why can’t the pollution from overpopulation be that?

It seems that a) we have to have SOME default setting regarding these things but we also b) have to be willing to be led by the Spirit in determining what OUR individual response to this or that perceived evil will be.

Tom

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/9/2006 1:30:24 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/9/2006 1:58:57 PM (GMT-5)

A possible analogy of this is the current state in Iraq and Afghanistan. While it is true that young girls are now attending schools that they were not heretofore attending, it is also probably true that those parents worry more than ever about the safety of their boys AND girls.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/22/2006 8:57:06 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 7/23/2006 9:51:09 AM (GMT-5)

What's Eating America

From the standpoint of industrial efficiency, it's too bad we can't simply drink petroleum directly, because there's a lot less energy in a bushel of corn (measured in calories) than there is in the half-gallon of oil required to produce it. Ecologically, this is a fabulously expensive way to produce food—but "ecologically" is no longer the operative standard. In the factory, time is money, and yield is everything.

The nickel-and-dime emissions reductions that will be vehemently fought over in Congress next January will have no effect on future climate. Only a major break-through in energy production technology (or a massive turn-over to nukes) will result in a lowering of global CO2 emissions to the degree necessary to impact our future climate pathway in any meaningful way. That time will come, but it isn’t yet upon us. And the more money we waste on futile attempts to stop emissions, the longer away that day is. [emph mine]