 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/15/2004 10:10 AM (GMT -6) |   | Been working on that other stuff for Trosie and crew. Sheesh...I can't afford to get involved this deep on the board again. Sigh... Anyways, taking a break. I'm moving all this stuff, so I don't derail the other thread.
--------------------
Russian Judge:
William Lane Craig on Talbott's pipedream:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/talbott1.html
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/talbott2.html
---------------------------------
Very quickly. HAVE to do this.
Talbott could have, I believe, easily justified his argument against Craig. Given Rejection Hypothesis:
(RH) Some persons will, despite God's best efforts to save them, freely and irrevocably reject God and thus separate themselves from God forever.
and Talbott's premiss...
P3) Necessarily, God loves a person S (with a perfect form of love) at a time t only if God's intention at t and every moment subsequent to t is to do everything within his power to promote supremely worthwhile happiness in S, provided that the actions taken are consistent with his promoting the same kind of happiness in all others whom he also loves.
...all Talbott had to do was revise his P3 thusly...
P3') Necessarily, God loves a person S (with a perfect form of love) at a time t only if God's intention at t and every moment subsequent AND ANTECEDENT to t is to do everything within his power to promote supremely worthwhile happiness in S, provided that the actions taken are consistent with his promoting the same kind of happiness in all others whom he also loves.
This would imply that God's all-loving intentionality would PRECEDE the creation/actualization of person S's existence and involve God's infinitely-intelligent CONCEPTION of person S's potentiality. From this, he should have argued that a being with omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence, particularly a CREATOR God, would be utterly incapable of creating any person S with such a constitution that RH could obtain.
If we say that RH is the absolute worst thing that can happen to any possible person S, than it is logically incoherent to say that an omnibenevolent being that had the power to avoid RH would NOT!
Think about it.
Doc has said over and over again that..."God’s creatures are finite. Although their freedom cannot be revoked, it can be thought of as “probabtional.” The scope and duration of their freedom is conditioned by many variables and ultimately determined by God’s will." IN other words, creaturely freedom ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, is contrained by divine conditions. Divine conditions that are always conditioned by God's nature and character.
I believe that it would be very easy to argue that, JUST LIKE GOD CANNOT LIE, DESTROY GODSELF, BE ESSENTIALLY UNLOVING, OR CREATE AN INFINITE CREATION OF ANY TYPE, God could not create any being that would have the possibility to render themselves completely impervious to God's wooing for eternity. God could create beings who could resist God for EONS upon EONS...but never eternally and not in EVERY possible circumstance. This preserves creaturely dignity and liberatarian freedom, while emphasizing universalism. It even makes the existence of postmortem hell/conscious suffering/separation from God viable...with universalism. Yes, it is possible that full ontological distinction and self-determination is COMPATIBLE with universalism! Making this compatible with Talbott's argument...
God could never create a sentient being WHOSE ESSENTIAL BEING predisposes towards or allows the possibility of RH.
I would argue that RH is broadly logically impossible with respect to having a omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent CREATOR God.
My 2c. Whatcha think, Tom? Email me.
Back to business,
---------------------------------------
Thoughts? Again, what is being proposed...
Given God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence (and all that those things entail), it would be impossible for God to create a sentient being whose ESSENTIAL NATURE allows for the possibility of the worst possible state of affairs for a sentient being, ie. ETERNAL, NEVER-ENDING separation from God. God could no more do this than God could create an inherently completely evil being!
God CAN create a free being that can freely resist God for VERY, VERY, VERY long stretches of time...and personally experience the torment of doing so. But as C.S. Lewis says...finality must come sometime.
Heh.
Thoughts, please.
-------------------------------------- | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/15/2004 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | William Lane Craig:
quote:
In sum, it is possible that in the moment logically prior to His decree to create, God knew via His middle knowledge either that there were no feasible worlds in which all persons are freely saved or that any such feasible worlds possessed other outweighing deficiencies. In choosing to actualize a world, God determined to offer sufficient grace for salvation, not only to those who He knew would accept it, but even to those who He knew would reject it. Since He knew that due to the light of His presence to the redeemed in heaven, the misery of the lost would not undermine the blessedness of the redeemed, He was not obliged to refrain from creation nor to set His sights on lesser goods that do not require free will, but could create a world in which a great multitude from every tongue and tribe and people and nation should freely come to receive His grace and so enter into the boundless joy of His fellowship forever. The pain of the awareness of the state of the damned, persons for whom Christ died and who stubbornly resisted the drawing of the Holy Spirit, remains known to God alone.
and...
quote:
It may well be the case that for some people the degree of revelation that would have to be imparted to them in order to secure their salvation would have to be so stunning that their freedom to disobey would be effectively removed (cf. Talbott's own remark that ". . . a degree of ambiguity, separation, and blindness is an essential element in the process by which God creates a free, independent, and rational agent"{8}). The notion that some sinners shall finally repent under the prolonged rigors of purgatory smacks of recantation under torture, and we all know how likely it is that such professions are voluntary or sincere. It seems more likely that sinners under God's punishment will grow even harder in their hearts and more determined in their hatred of Him for treating them thus.
FIRST,
Craig would have to argue that, in God's omnibenevolent mind, it is MUCH WORSE to put divine constraints on creaturely freedom such that people could freely continue to resist God for ages upon ages, but NOT eternally...than it is to:
1) have at least one (but probably many more) sentient being be eternally damned and separated from God
and...
2) have God (if ONLY God) endure NEVER-ENDING pain and sorrow over the loss of those persons.
Does this make sense to any of you guys?
SECOND,
Craig dismisses Talbott's point way too lightly. Where Craig sees "recantation under torture", I see a person in a far away land with their face in the mud in a pig-pen who "comes to themselves" and says "I will arise and go to my Father" Craig simply doesn't admit that some people are more pig-headed than others and NEEDS that type of thing to turn them around. What Talbott is saying, I believe, is that God made ALL OF US with this "prodigal factor" At SOME point, we hit our wall, come to ourselves, and look for true life.
How can he not SEE this???
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/15/2004 10:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Mephi-
I'll try to jump in here when I can, but I've got guests from out of town crashing at my place, kids everywhere, a dog, dinner out every night (nice--doing a jazz/swing dinner tonight; memories!), and Christmas shopping. So I'm not sure when I'll get freed up. But I'll try.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/15/2004 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Can’t say much, but real quickly.
(1) I remember when reading Jerry Walls’ Hell: The Logic of Damnation back in September that he engaged Talbott’s arguments successfully I thought. But being 40+ years old I don’t recall specifically what the arguments were! I just remember feeling good that I’d be able to justify believing sinners roast their brains out in hell for ever. Juuust kiddin.
(2) As I think on your thesis, Mephi, I’m thinking of several things:
You said, “This preserves creaturely dignity and liberatarian freedom, while emphasizing universalism.” I can’t for the life of me figure out how this works. A sinner in hell rejects God for, say, 3 million years. On the assumption that she can’t reject God forever, and on the assumption of universalism, and on the assumption that salvation is the experience and enjoyment of divine love, and on the assumption that relating in love to God demands libertarian free will, how does one both deny the possibility of eternal conscious suffering AND affirm universalism?
When after 3 million years the sinner finally says, “OK, God, enough!” and THEN chooses God, is the sinner’s choice (a) a libertarian choice, or (b) a choice the sinner makes after libertarian free will supposedly expires due to its finiteness? If (a), then I don’t see how we can deny the sinner is free to continue rejecting Christ. That option would seem to be entailed by the very definition of libertarian free will. So, so long as LFW exists, the option of further rejection in hell appears to be entailed. But if (b), then the choice is not a libertarian one at all and I fail to see how Doc especially would be willing to abandon warfare thesis 1: “Love requires freedom.” The circumstances don’t appear to mitigate the truth of this thesis. It holds universally, even in hell. But if we’re saying that it’s AFTER libertarian free will at some point expires in hell and is no more that God then in mercy saves the sinner, I’m asking myself ‘What objection would such a person then have for having rejected compatibilistic free will in the first place?’, for this objection rests upon the premise that LOVE demands such freedom, that apart from this freedom, no finite human is capable of entering into a loving and personal relationship with another, God or otherwise.
So, my questions are:
(1) Is the eventual choice of those in hell for God a libertarian choice? If so, what guarantees its being exercised in favor of God and not in rejecting God so long as LFW exists? If not, then how is it possible for the choice to issue in a personal and loving relationship with God?
(2) IF one were to argue that free will eventually expires in hell, AFTER which time God compatibilistically saves everyone, why think that universalism follows? Given the difficulty of explaining how persons in hell who do not possess LFW are able to choose a personal and loving relationship with God, why not just assume then that the person herself expires, ceases to exist, when her freedom ceases to exist?
Lock, do NOT get on here and tell me that when God eradicates the ‘flesh’ of those in hell they’ll just, poof, make the right choices. Please don’t do that. Thank you.
More later.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/15/2004 11:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Other crucial considerations in this discussion, as I see it, would be:
1. The gravity of sin. Universalism makes sin out to be something God only tolerates for a time, not something He positively hates, as Scripture reveals. I think we've just forgotten how terrible sin is.
2. The gravity of the Cross. Universalism, like its first cousin determinism, makes Christ's death on Calvary unnecessary. The Scripture is unanimous in asserting that forgiveness is only found through the blood of Christ, that this is only efficacious for those who repent and have faith in it, and that Hell is beyond the point of no return with respect to repentance.
John
Revelation 20:10 - And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus seems to clearly indicate that the torments of hell are conscious and cannot in any case be avoided by those suffering there, even if they want to get out:
Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
"Heaven yes, hell no!"
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/15/2004 12:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
(1) Is the eventual choice of those in hell for God a libertarian choice? If so, what guarantees its being exercised in favor of God and not in rejecting God so long as LFW exists? If not, then how is it possible for the choice to issue in a personal and loving relationship with God?
I'm answering this one because this is the one that I was thinking of. Yes, the eventual choice for God would be a libertarian choice.
This would be just like what we say for Jesus. The "could, but WOULD NOT" idea. In other words, it would easy to say that God creates human constitution such that at given temporal point X, if they have NOT already chosen for God by then, that there is a point of epistemic distance that they reach where for love is indeed genuine AND ontological distinction exists...BUT brings them to a point where they choose God in such a way that further sin is logically possible, but not "historically" possible (as you would say, Tom). In this state, we would truly be like Christ. We have come to the end of ourselves and REALIZE the futility of life without God. And even though we COULD go through all the mess again, we WON'T. Not only will we have our OWN experiences to reflect on, but that of ALL OF HISTORY. Again, like the Prodigal, we'd have learnt our lesson!
My premise. IF the "could, but wouldn't" idea is good enough for Jesus, where libertarian freedom AND solidification of purpose are merged, I don't see the problem. God knows this line and takes us to it.
The "Love requires freedom" thesis MERGES with self-solidification, remember? Love is compatible with self-solidification and this is what makes hell possible, in Satan and the Problem of Evil. All I'm saying is that God takes us to a point where this self-solidification comes...TOWARDS GOD. A point at which our finitude is reached and we EXISTENTIALLY understand our limitations and needs in a good way...JUST LIKE THE PRODIGAL SON. This is all possible...and plausible, given the idea of a God that wants ALL PEOPLE to be saved.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/15/2004 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
quote:
Other crucial considerations in this discussion, as I see it, would be:
1. The gravity of sin. Universalism makes sin out to be something God only tolerates for a time, not something He positively hates, as Scripture reveals. I think we've just forgotten how terrible sin is.
2. The gravity of the Cross. Universalism, like its first cousin determinism, makes Christ's death on Calvary unnecessary. The Scripture is unanimous in asserting that forgiveness is only found through the blood of Christ, that this is only efficacious for those who repent and have faith in it, and that Hell is beyond the point of no return with respect to repentance.
1) The Cross demonstrates the gravity of sin to God, NOT the length of one's stay in hell.
2) Christ's incarnations, life, death, and resurrection is the ONLY way that we have ANY salvation at all. Universalism just deals with how that salvation, which is ONLY THROUGH CHRIST, is meted out. We need to get that straight. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/15/2004 1:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Perhaps we could reflect in a NEW way on an old story...
“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
“About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went.
“He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
“ ‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
“The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
“But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
-----
I can just hear a lot of us now...
"Hey, God, I chose you in my EARTHLY lifetime! I went through hell and back for you THEN. That person resisted you for a long time AFTER death...and they get to experience your love too??? That's not fair!!!"
"Yo, buddy. Didn't you come into my love? Didn't I lavish that love on you, like I said? Don't you have what I promised YOU?? So WHAT I want to let this other person experience my love too. So WHAT it took them MUCH longer than it did you? So WHAT it's pretty much the eleventh hour?? Don't I have the right to be gracious to whom I will be gracious??
The old "elder brother" syndrome...
Hmm...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/15/2004 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
1) The Cross demonstrates the gravity of sin to God, NOT the length of one's stay in hell.
That assumes the penal substitution view of the atonement, which Scripture itself does not plainly teach.
The Cross demonstrates the LOVE of God for sinners, not the wrath of God towards sin.
quote:
2) Christ's incarnations, life, death, and resurrection is the ONLY way that we have ANY salvation at all. Universalism just deals with how that salvation, which is ONLY THROUGH CHRIST, is meted out. We need to get that straight.
That statement assumes the very exclusivist view I thought you were arguing against, Meph. As I affirm Christ's words towards children, that "of such is the kingdom of God," and as I affirm that righteous judgment of God is "according to truth" (Rom. 2) and that every mouth will be shut before God's judgment (Rom. 1), it does not follow in my view that anyone will end up in hell due to ignorance alone.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 12/16/2004 12:54 AM (GMT -6) | | ps. I think Mephi was referring to US acting like the elder brother...not Jesus. If I'm wrong, I don't get it.
also - DON'T U JUST LOVE THAT KINGDOM of HEAVEN STORY!! God is so smooth... :) He's the upside down inside out first last last first paradoxical King of the Kingdom. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/16/2004 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: (1) Is the eventual choice of those in hell for God a libertarian choice? If so, what guarantees its being exercised in favor of God and not in rejecting God so long as LFW exists? If not, then how is it possible for the choice to issue in a personal and loving relationship with God?
Mephi: I'm answering this one because this is the one that I was thinking of. Yes, the eventual choice for God would be a libertarian choice. This would be just like what we say for Jesus.
Stop there. I wouldn’t agree (nor would Doc) that Jesus had libertarian free will. So how does Jesus serve as an example in this case?
quote:
Mephi: In other words, it would easy to say that God creates human constitution such that at given temporal point X, if they have NOT already chosen for God by then, that there is a point of epistemic distance that they reach where [their choice] for love is indeed genuine AND ontological distinction exists...BUT brings them to a point where they choose God in such a way that further sin is logically possible, but not "historically" possible….
I’m not following this. How would God design libertarian free will in such a way that if it isn’t exercised in the right way by a certain time, it then by design gets exercised in the right way in such a way that it’s still by definition “libertarian”? I still don’t see how God (or anyone) can guarantee a future libertarian choice, period.
Judging from the flow of your argument, Mephi, it looks to me like you’re defining sin like Dewey, as a form of ignorance, or at least behavior that follows from ignorance. So once all the illusions are destroyed, once God pulls every possible prop from underneath the suffering sinner’s feet, sin becomes an impossibility because requires SOME reason, if even an illusion.
Nietzsche’s reply to this was: I’ll always have at least one reason for continuing on in sin, the satisfaction of knowing I represent one corner of the universe where God doesn’t get what he wants.” That’s an option God can’t remove, so far as I can see. Its possibility defines libertarian free will.
quote:
Mephi: My premise. IF the "could, but wouldn't" idea is good enough for Jesus, where libertarian freedom AND solidification of purpose are merged, I don't see the problem.
But I’m not agreeing that it’s good enough for Jesus. That Jesus had libertarian free will that solidified into compatibilistic free will? And that this solidification FOR good and FROM libertarianism to compatibilism was absolutely guaranteed? I don’t see that one.
quote:
Mephi: The "Love requires freedom" thesis MERGES with self-solidification, remember?
Right, but there’s no guaranteeing the direction in which a libertarian agent will solidify herself. You appear to be claiming that Jesus is an instance of such a guarantee. But we disputed that (I thought) a while back. At least Doc’s feeling was Jesus did NOT possess libertarian free will and solidified it over time.
quote:
Mephi: All I'm saying is that God takes us to a point where this self-solidification comes...TOWARDS GOD. A point at which our finitude is reached and we EXISTENTIALLY understand our limitations and needs in a good way...JUST LIKE THE PRODIGAL SON. This is all possible...and plausible, given the idea of a God that wants ALL PEOPLE to be saved.
Why can’t I see this? Anybody else struggling with this?
OK, three things:
1) (About the bold part): How does this not reduce to “God determines our self-solidification”? That’s what I’m seeing. And I just don’t see that this claim makes any sense at all. Solidification makes sense so long as the agent is responsible for determining in what direction she’s solidified. But you’ve got God being responsible for the direction in which some at least are solidified. How’s God do that? Just by removing all the illusions and deceptions and props that provide the context for our rejection of God? Here’s what I’d try to argue—the absolute removal of all conceivable excuses one might have for rejecting God just isn’t possible. In the end, libertarian will IS its own excuse. God can’t strip of us ALL excuses for rejecting him without stripping us of libertarian free will itself. Remember Bill Clinton’s explanation of WHY he did it with Monica? He said, “Because I could.” Hmm.
2) (About the italicized part): Does this not assume a weak view of sin in Dewian terms? That sin is just ignorance, and that if we just see things clearly we will unfailingly choose rightly? Why believe that? And also, I’m not seeing how you can claim the final choice for God which sinners in hell make is “libertarian” and also claim the choice is guaranteed because of the finite limits of libertarian free will.
3) (About the CAPS part): Just like the prodigal son? The prodigal son’s return was somehow guaranteed? He couldn’t have spent his entire life out of relationship with his father? I’m not seeing this.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 8:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
I’m not following this. How would God design libertarian free will in such a way that if it isn’t exercised in the right way by a certain time, it then by design gets exercised in the right way in such a way that it’s still by definition “libertarian”? I still don’t see how God (or anyone) can guarantee a future libertarian choice, period.
God constrains the SCOPE of the libertarian choice...and therefore there are certain things that God can guarantee concerning the choice. Overused example. We cannot choose to become ducks, because of our human constitution. Therefore, God can be guaranteed that we will not freely choose to become ducks.
Isn't it possible that God constitutes the core of our subjectivity, the "disposition", such that there is an undeniable core to ourselves that we cannot CHANGE, only REPRESS OR SUPPRESS KNOWLEDGE OF: the facticity of our creaturely status before God.
-----------------------------
Tom:
quote:
Judging from the flow of your argument, Mephi, it looks to me like you’re defining sin like Dewey, as a form of ignorance, or at least behavior that follows from ignorance. So once all the illusions are destroyed, once God pulls every possible prop from underneath the suffering sinner’s feet, sin becomes an impossibility because requires SOME reason, if even an illusion.
Nietzsche’s reply to this was: I’ll always have at least one reason for continuing on in sin, the satisfaction of knowing I represent one corner of the universe where God doesn’t get what he wants.” That’s an option God can’t remove, so far as I can see. Its possibility defines libertarian free will.
Ultimately, I'd say that sin is not because of IGNORANCE, but because of DECEPTION and SELF-DECEPTION. Actually, I'd say that all sin comes as a DEFENSE MECHANCISM caused by a LIE. The UNDENIABLE TRUTH that, I believe, is wired into all sentient beings is their creaturely status before God, our Source. It's the a necessary, but not sufficient, ground of our dispositions. Instead of admitting our finitude and living within that, we believe that the Infinite God is a THREAT to our existence instead of the rightful ground of its being. We then either REPRESS (unconsciously place an inward reality away from our awareness) or SUPRESS (consciously rebel against the an inward reality) this fact. And we do all kinds of things in this repression/suppression state. Sin.
My thought is that God has created us such that there is only SO LONG that we can avoid the INTERNAL REALITY of our created natures...AND the EXTERNAL REALITY of God's presence and love. As the latter becomes more prevalent, the former longs for it even more...to the point where the suppressed/repressed desire to have God as source is stimulated again, and restored! Part of our "self-disposing disposition" (Doc's terminology from "Trinity and Process) is our innate connection with God that supplies the facticity of our creaturely finitude before God.
Let me use an example. Certain people who suffer from eating disorders don't eat...and over a period of time, actually stop having hunger pains. (I have a friend who endured this very thing!) Now, we know hunger pains are a natural function that tell us we need to eat. But they don't have those. This makes it lots easier for them to not eat...or forget to eat. When these people are checked into an eating disorder clinic, sometimes situations are SO BAD that that they have to be strapped down to a bed, and fed nutrition through a tube. This is done periodically to keep the person alive...but something interesting happens...THE HUNGER PAINS COME BACK. Why? Simple. The need the stomach has for food is an INTERNAL REALITY that can be denied only so long as the stomach got no food. Then it could be suppressed. But when the external reality of the nutrition kept hitting the stomach, the stomach, by nature of what it is, responded and "boom", new hunger pains.
Think of this: God designs us such that we could, like the eating disorder patient, supress the internal reality about ourselves for a VERY, VERY long time...solidifying ourselves against God. But there could NEVER be FULL solidication against God because of the internal reality at the core of all sentient creatures. But upon God showing more and more of the EXTERNAL REALITY of his presence and love, our INTERNAL REALITY's longing for this grows more and more. Heck, we may even WRESTLE with that...but over time, our internal reality will NOT be denied...and we soon come to ACKNOWLEDGE our longing existentially. And we CHOOSE to give ourselves what we've wanted all along.
I would contend that Neitzche's suggestion constitutes a willing unto self-autonomy---the curving of the self unto itself--and is one of the most powerful forms of this suppression. And it too won't last forever.
Doc has always said that one of the factors that constraint libertarian freedom is the CONSTITUTION OF THE BEING. This is what I'm suggesting. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 12:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Does this really not make any sense? Just wondering...
Selah, what do you think of this? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/16/2004 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: God constrains the SCOPE of the libertarian choice...and therefore there are certain things that God can guarantee concerning the choice. Overused example. We cannot choose to become ducks, because of our human constitution. Therefore, God can be guaranteed that we will not freely choose to become ducks.
Tom: For sure. LFW is constrained and limited by our constitution AND the constitution of the universe. But it can’t be limited precisely where God intends us to exercise it, that is, in choosing for or against him. Yet this is precisely where you seem to me to be saying the constraint ultimately is. That’s what’s not making sense. I’m totally with ya on the fact that our freedom is constrained (by constitution, solidification, the options, lots of stuff). It’s the claim that there comes a point where the freedom to choose for or against God is constrained by a constitution incapable of choosing against God and yet remains the same libertarian free will that’s not making sense to me. It affirms and denies the same thing, viz., that we’re libertarianly free to choose against God. Now, I’d agree it’s no denial of LFW to argue God limits the exercise of our will to EXCLUDE our choosing to become ducks. But I’d argue it IS a denial of LFW to argue God limits the exercise of our will to EXCLUDE our choosing to reject him.
Mephi: Isn't it possible that God constitutes the core of our subjectivity, the "disposition", such that there is an undeniable core to ourselves that we cannot CHANGE, only REPRESS OR SUPPRESS KNOWLEDGE OF: the facticity of our creaturely status before God.
Tom: I’m not sure. I’ll think on that one. I’m tempted to say this is not possible for God if relating to God in love means relating to God at this core level of my being, for then the requirements of love (viz., libertarian free will and power to the contrary) kick in. Here’s my question: How am I to be free to choose to relate the core of my subjectivity, this disposition, personally and lovingly to God without being equally free to exclude God from this same core level of my being? Unless there are good reasons to believe God could not have created us otherwise, I feel inclined to affirm the metaphysical requirements of love and libertarian free will to the bitter end, even unto eternity.
Mephi: Ultimately, I'd say that sin is not because of IGNORANCE, but because of DECEPTION and SELF-DECEPTION.
Tom: Which is a self-inflicted ignorance of sorts. Right. Well, OK. Same deal. I was talking about the belief that sin stems from a less than accurate perception of reality, that all you need to do is fix that perception and you rid the world of evil.
Mephi: Actually, I'd say that all sin comes as a DEFENSE MECHANCISM caused by a LIE. The UNDENIABLE TRUTH that, I believe, is wired into all sentient beings is their creaturely status before God, our Source. It's the a necessary, but not sufficient, ground of our dispositions. Instead of admitting our finitude and living within that, we believe that the Infinite God is a THREAT to our existence instead of the rightful ground of its being. We then either REPRESS (unconsciously place an inward reality away from our awareness) or SUPRESS (consciously rebel against the an inward reality) this fact. And we do all kinds of things in this repression/suppression state. Sin.
My thought is that God has created us such that there is only SO LONG that we can avoid the INTERNAL REALITY of our created natures...AND the EXTERNAL REALITY of God's presence and love. As the latter becomes more prevalent, the former longs for it even more...to the point where the suppressed/repressed desire to have God as source is stimulated again, and restored! Part of our "self-disposing disposition" (Doc's terminology from "Trinity and Process) is our innate connection with God that supplies the facticity of our creaturely finitude before God.
Tom: Sounds good, I think.
We’ll have to do a Jazz dinner again over THIS issue in the Spring when I come up to find a place to rent. I’m there. Until then, I’ll tag along and follow the discussion, but I’m not seeing it.
Selah, you are not libertarianly free to NOT attend that dinner!
Mephi: Doc has always said that one of the factors that constraint libertarian freedom is the CONSTITUTION OF THE BEING. This is what I'm suggesting.
Tom: I’m totally with ya on affirming that our constitution constrains the exercise of our freedom, but that doesn’t solve it, for it seems that SOME constraints are incompatible with the sort of freedom necessary for the sort of loving relationships we wanna say are at least one of the reasons God gave us freedom in the first place. I can say, “You have freedom to choose to love me or not, but not freedom to become a duck.” But I can’t say, “You have freedom to choose to love me or not, but not freedom to choose not to love me.” I’m hearing you affirm the latter; that our constitution constrains us to choose for God—at some eventual point in time--but we remain libertarianly free do otherwise even at that point in time. God will not let us freely choose against him. And he’s guaranteed this by giving us a constitution that’s incapable of choosing wrongly when faced with ultimate truth. I’m having a hard time with THAT. I don’t wanna be guilty of taking the early workers’ attitude and grumbling after the fact that God was unfair to those of us who chose him in this life by extending an opportunity to those in hell. I have questions about that, but they aren’t based in the assumption that God would be unfair to do such a thing.
Selah? Come on Sis.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 1:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
I can say, “You have freedom to choose to love me or not, but not freedom to become a duck.” But I can’t say, “You have freedom to choose to love me or not, but not freedom to choose to not love me.” I’m hearing you affirm the latter; that our constitution constrains us to choose for God—if even at some eventual point in time. God will not let us freely choose against him. And he’s guaranteed this by giving us a constitution that’s incapable of choosing wrongly when faced with ultimate truth. I’m having a hard time with THAT.
I'm curious. Why do you have a problem with that? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/16/2004 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: I'm curious. Why do you have a problem with that?
Tom: Only because it appears to me that affirming it destroys the very freedom that (we're agreeing) makes personal and loving relationship with God possible. I want THAT kind of relationship to be possible. I'm assuming, for the sake of argument, that even after the resurrection God will be reaching out to some (all, whatever) in an attempt to get precisely what he didn't get here on earth from them, viz., their choice to say "yes" to God's offer of love. The only sort of freedom I know of that makes it possible for us to say "yes" to this is one which also makes it possible for us to say "no." Nothing new there. It's the same old argument for libertarian free will. I don't understand why universalists who affirm such freedom this side of the grave feel free to abandon it that side of the grave. I'm affirming it both sides precisely because on both sides of the grave it's the same personal and loving relationship with respect to which we are imagining people to be choosing. If so, then the same metaphysical requirements apply both sides.
What am I missing?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 1:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
I don't understand why universalists who affirm such freedom this side of the grave feel free to abandon it that side of the grave. I'm affirming it both sides precisly because on both sides of the grave its the same personal and loving relationship with respect to which we are imagining people to be choosing.
Probably for the fact that in order to claim what you'd have to claim, you'd have to say that...
in God's omnibenevolent mind, it is MUCH, MUCH WORSE to put divine constraints on creaturely freedom such that people could freely continue to resist God for ages upon ages, but NOT eternally...than it is to:
1) have at least one (but probably many more) sentient being be eternally damned and separated from God
and...
2) have God (if ONLY God) endure NEVER-ENDING pain and sorrow over the loss of those persons.
This is a tall order. ESPECIALLY when you'd still have love being freely chosen...NOT compatibilistic or magically transformed. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 1:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
I’m not sure. I’ll think on that one. I’m tempted to say this is not possible for God if relating to God in love means relating to God at this core level of my being, for then the requirements of love (viz., libertarian free will and power to the contrary) kick in. Here’s my question: How am I to be free to choose to relate the core of my subjectivity, this disposition, personally and lovingly to God without being equally free to exclude God from this same core level of my being? Unless there are good reasons to believe God could not have created us otherwise, I feel inclined to affirm the metaphysical requirements of love and libertarian free will to the bitter end, even unto eternity.
What we are essentially talking about, Tom, is the aspect of your being from whence the "God-shaped vaccuum" feeling that everyone keeps talking about comes. That intuition that Doc talks about a LOT. If we think about it, that aspect of your being is ALWAYS related to God. Hence, the God always being the INTENDED subject of it's need. You don't "relate" this aspect to God. You FOLLOW this aspect of ourselves into CHOOSING God. Just like we FOLLOW our hungry stomachs and choose to eat food!
-----------------------------------------
About TWT 1. Let's go with character solidification. The point of that whole thing is that character solidification doesn't violate TWT 1 if it is ultimately SELF-FULFILLED. It cannot be the case the God just "zaps" someone to change their character instantly...nor can the freedom be removed. There can be all kinds of influences and constraints that the free agent "bumps into" as it were, but the FINAL STEPS towards character solidification must be made by the free SUBJECT. What I'm saying occurs is that the SUBJECT ultimately makes the choice to solidify themselves towards God. What happens is a serious TURNING POINT where the being comes to the "end of his rope" and begins realizing the futility of the foolish quest of refusing to BE, as it were. This is DISTINCT from compatibilism, because it truly is the SUBJECT (NOT GOD) that makes the decision and the SUBJECT who solidifies themselves towards God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/16/2004 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: This is a tall order, ESPECIALLY when you'd still have love being freely chosen...NOT compatibilistic or magically transformed.
Tom: Oh, hey, if you can show me how God can constitutionally constrain the choice for love AND that choice still be a libertarian one, I'm all ears. I'll re-read through what we've talked about to see if I missed you're having shown this. I don't remember seeing it. That would be a HUGE proof.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/16/2004 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Great to talk to ya Mephi. Love it. Greeting the "gang" for me!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 1:35 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 1:41 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't see how what I'm proposing is a problem. Haven't we heard this type of thing in testimony time all the time??
A person goes as far as they can go without God, feels like they don't need God, perhaps gets into some trouble. Hits the proverbial "rock bottom." Comes to themselves and decides to turn a new direction...towards God. (I see the Prodigal Son as hitting "rock bottom" of a sorts)
I would say that this is the SAME DYNAMIC that happens even post-mortem. Due to our finitude, EVERYONE has a "absolute rock bottom." Some people don't need to get to it, but others do. And when they do, then turn may be slow, but the DEVELOPMENT from the turn is all on them.
Isn't this consistent with what we see in life? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 1:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Nother thought.
I wonder something. Why do we sometimes do things like strap peoplew who are starving themselves to beds and feed them through a tube? Why do we try to keep some people alive against their will? Doesn't the person with the eating disorder have the autonomy to emaciate themselves unto death? Why do we sometimes put a straitjacket on people who are constantl self-mutilating? Hey, it's their body, right? Why do we sometimes involuntarily commit a person who may be suicidal? Doesn't that person have the RIGHT to destroy themselves if they so choose? It's their life after all. Why does a counselor HAVE to report something if their client talks about killing themselves...and try to prevent it? WHY?? Is it because we believe that sometimes people are two deeply embedded in their issues to make their OWN way out...and sometimes they need HELP???
I see a deep inconsistency here. We, being fallible, fallen humans, see a benefit in doing stop-actions and interventions of various types when it is obvious that a person is sick and UNABLE to make proper choices for themselves...in order to preserve their opportunities for life.
But we want to say that when it comes to ETERNAL DAMNATION--the absolute worst thing ANY being could experience--God is fundamentally different then us. God would create beings that would be able to stew in their own disease of self-deceit...for eternity. Somethin' ain't right...
Anyone out there? | | Back to Top | | |
| 72 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:39 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 |
|
|