Yo Mephi-

Sorry to keep ya waiting. Trying to keep up.

I did read Reitan’s seventh chapter. I’ll try to make some comments on it, but first I wanted to make a couple of general comments unrelated to Reitan.

It’s probably not fair for me to wonder about or probe into your motivation for adopting universalism. Everybody has stuff going on that influences how they “feel” about different options. None of us can escape that. But we also try to be aware of it and guard against its determining our conclusions. Anyhow, it seemed to me (knowing you the little that I do) that you’re very invested in universalism’s being true because that relieves a great deal of anxiety for you, anxiety you’ve expressed through the years over issues of theodicy. I mean, if everybody “makes it,” then there really is no problem of evil, no issues of theodicy to worry about. They’re gone. And since the board first started out it seemed to me that you really “felt” the problem of evil and suffering in a very personal way (not a bad thing at all!). You were very motivated to find some explanation, to tie it all down. You’ve always been tenacious that way, and universalism sure ties it all down nicely. Universalism offers huge payoffs for other theological problems that aren’t directly related just to people going to heaven, and I that’s a big influence; nothing to shake a stick at.

I know in my own case I try to be more suspicious of my conclusions the more I have at stake in them, or the more I stand to benefit if my conclusions are believed to be right. I guess I’d be more comfortable with your whole presentation if you took a more open-ended (less dogmatic) stance and didn’t insist (as Talbot and Reitan do) that universalism has to be right or that it’s the only possible way to make sense of love, justice, divine victory, or whatever.

[On a side note, I’d be more comfortable with the rebuttals of Laika and John (though I’m closer to them on the scriptural evidence for the traditional view) if I could see some sign of a struggle over the idea that people just fry in agony for ever and ever and ever. They seem a little non challant about the idea. I mean, does this do anything to us? Eternal conscious torment—imagine it. Show SOME evidence of struggling with it. Even Craig agrees that our knowing this about hell would make our partying on in heaven practically impossible (which I haven’t yet agreed with—but it HAS to be addressed). So he argues that God then must just wipe all such data from our minds, including our memories of unsaved loved ones (we wouldn’t even know we had any!), so that the truth doesn’t rain on our party in heaven. Some victory.]

Getting back to Talbott’s dogmatism. This is why I earlier asked you whether it’s not enough, pastorally speaking, to assure ourselves and others that God will do everything within his power to win every person to his love, meaning that God will provide every person an optimal measure of grace so that a free and responsible decisive response to God can be made. Can’t that be enough? You thought not, which surprised me. But anyhow, I still think this is enough. It’s is a great first-order affirmation of faith. It has great scriptural support and provides an adequate basis for pastoral care, but it leaves people open to determine the second-order stuff (the philosophical questions about just what a “free and responsible decisive response” actually means) and to square this with how they feel the biblical evidence is best understood. So we can be “hopeful” but not “dogmatic.” This doesn’t undermine pastoral care, since the comfort we experience and offer others with regard to the ultimate fate of the damned is grounded entirely in the reality of God’s loving character and not in our being right about creation (i.e., our being right about the details of this or that philosophical view of how human freedom would work in post-mortem situations—which we have no empirical evidence to inform our conclusions anyhow, another reason to be less than dogmatic). So I see Talbott and Reitan’s dogmatism as making the fundamental error of insisting that our comfort and peace (the pastoral question) in this instance must be based on getting it right on creation (i.e., trusting our conclusions about creation) rather than from getting it right on God’s character (i.e., trusting our conclusions about God) and leaving the rest open-ended.

See, Mephi, here’s what I do. I only push for more dogmatic conclusions about creation where I think they’re required by logical or fundamental existential demands, and that’s not often since I think our fundamental existential needs are addressed by correctly understanding God’s character (as opposed to correctly understanding creation) and then just trusting. So it’s hard for me to engage the question of universalism at length because I don’t really need universalism to be true or false. (That’s not to say I don’t have opinions and am not more persuaded by some arguments than others. It’s just to say that its being true or false doesn’t give me any existential leverage or comfort regarding the fate of the damned that I don’t already have right now by simply trusting the loving character of a God hanging on the Cross.) For me the question of universalism is academic, whereas for you it appears to be substantial. You seem have your existential needs (e.g., the pastoral aspects and relief from the pain of theodicy) riding on your being right about creation, which explains why you need to be “certain.” I agree we need enough certainty to provide a livable frame of mind and ministry. I just think being certain about God’s character provides this and is far easier to establish (biblically, theologically, and philosophically) than certainty with regard to creation. I just don’t think I can adjudicate my way through all the philosophical arguments for universalism to get to a “dogmatic” position, but then again I don’t think I need to. And I’m far more concerned with YOUR feeling like YOU need to than I am with whether or not universalism is in fact true. Does that make sense?

That’s all I got time for now.

Tom

PS Didn't read 'em all, but there last few posts ask about motivation for evangelism (Mephi's point being it ought to be love of God and the joy of being in him and not 'escaping the fires of hell'). But I don't get this. It looks to me like universalists are more motivated by the desire to escape hell than anyone out there.

Post Edited (TGB) : 3/4/2005 1:37:36 PM (GMT-6)

Mephi: I'd like to boil this down somewhat. You seem to want to say that there is a separation (not just distinction) between God's CHARACTER and God's CREATION with respect to universalism.

Tom: With respect to everything God’s character is what it is and Creation is what it is.

Mephi: I suppose that this would be analogous to the "mystery in the tornado" idea dealing with the problem of evil, yes?

Tom: Well, in a sense, but not quite. I’m more focusing on what WE are capable of knowing with certainty about creation and what we’re capable of knowing with certainty about God and then saying that the pastoral concerns that attach to the question of universalism (what happened to my teenage daughter who committed suicide? What about my Muslim father who died with hearing the gospel? etc.) are adequately answered by what can be know with certainty about GOD. We ought to assume that we know God better than we understand creation (viz., the philosophical arguments about free will in ultimate contexts, whether or not the metaphysics of love are violated by your system [they seem to me to be so], the metaphysical capacity of possible worlds you speak of, etc.) with respect to universalism. So I’m not at all arguing that the relative certainties/uncertainties we have to face with regard to GOD and CREATION when it comes to universalism are “analogous” to those we have to face with regard to theodicy. I’m arguing they’re the “same.” I’m not drawing an analogy between the latter and the former. I’m the former is an example OF the latter.

Mephi: Cool enough. But surely, you see the links between the two. It all comes down to METAPHYSICAL CAPACITY of possible worlds, given God's divine intentions for Creation.

Tom: If it doesn’t come down to the metaphysical possibilities, then it at least starts there. I understand you to be saying eternal punishment is not a metaphysically possible world. Being who he is, God is simply incapable of taking that “risk.” So really it starts and ends there doesn’t it? I mean, why debate all the other issues? Universalism follows necessarily from God’s decision to purpose our world for loving relationship, right?

Mephi: Isn't this the consistent basis of the whole "mystery in the tornado" idea? That due to the metaphysics of love and God's scope for Creation, there was NO CHOICE for God but to allow the VERY PROBABLE emergence of sin, evil, and death?

Tom: That’s not my point at all. I’m not arguing about what are or are not acceptable risks. I was only commenting on the epistemic dimensions of the argument. All I’m arguing is this: We have to admit a great deal of uncertainty with respect to our arguments about risk, creation, the metaphysics of free will, the intelligibility of decisively rejecting God, the metaphysically possible worlds, etc. All of that is the uncertain CREATION we have to face. But we don’t have to admit uncertainty with respect to GOD (his character, goodness, and infinite love). I’m saying what we know about God is “enough” for us, pastorally speaking, even if we don’t have sure answers on the ultimate question of universalism. If you think universalism is necessarily entailed God’s being good and infinitely loving, go for it. I don’t see that. But that’s OK. I don’t need to see it since I really do have enough in JUST GOD to trust without having to see the entailment you do, or even if I’m sure the entailment is not there, to trust that whatever happens in the end, God will do what’s right.

Mephi: What this boils down to is this: the link between God's character and God's creation with this whole thing is God's divine telos or intention for creation.

Tom: For sure, that’s how anybody seeking “certainty” would have to find it if they’re to find it at all. But the “certainty” unfortunately just doesn’t follow from know God’s purpose for creation, unless you just assume the truth of universalism IN the telos for creation and “spells it out” clearly—God’s telos for the world was to unconditionally determine each individual’s ultimate fate (nearly Talbott’s exact words). But if you express the telos in more general terms, terms that don’t actually assume the truth of your argument, then you still have to argue and reason from the telos to what it entails and implies, which immediately entangles us in much about creation that we don’t understand and so compromises the certainty we can have.

My point is: So what? When will God (his character and love displayed on the Cross) be enough? Do I also have to be certain enough to have a right to insist dogmatically that universalism is true? Now, if you believe saying “God is love” is logically equivalent to saying, “God is metaphysically incapable of risking the ‘eternal’ loss of a single sentient being’s ‘self’,” then sure, universalism follows dogmatically from belief in God’s loving intentions for creation. Done deal. I don’t see that logical equivalence at all, so the question is open for me. Moreover, for those for whom the question is open, satisfactory pastoral answers can be had and offered to others since it’s God’s own character (not GOD + whatever reasons I believe entail universalism in God’s character) that grounds our confidence in the end result.

Mephi: The divine telos MUST be logically possible (dealing with creation) and must be consonant with God's nature (dealing with God's character) to be considered viable for possible actualization. For example, we could reasonably say that God's telos would allow for a world where squares are perfectly round…

Tom: Agreed. But we obviously disagree about non-universalist views being the logical equivalent of square circles. I acknowledge your belief that non-universalist views are incoherent and illogical. But whether you’re right about this is not at all as clear as your being right about the meaninglessness of “square circles.” However clear it may appear to you, it’s not to others. My point is, there’s good news! For those of us less dogmatic than you are, we can enjoy no less an ability and confidence to comfort and care for others for whom this question poses some problem and that by pointing out that God (about whom we don’t have to wonder) will do everything within his power to win every person to his love, and that whatever happens in the end with respect to the final destiny of individuals, it will be right, just, and perfectly consistent with God’s being an infinitely loving being. I’m more sure that there’s something wrong with my faith if THIS is not enough than I am sure of any of the biblical and philosophical arguments we’re debating.

Mephi: Given all this, Tom, I ask myself the question very seriously: Given what I believe to be God's divine telos for Creation, would the eternal self-destruction of sentient creatures to be an ACCEPTABLE RISK to God? Restated, would a possible world where sentient creature could self-solidify themselves unto eternal self-destruction be a proper object of the divine telos?

Tom: I’d never claim such self-destruction is an “object” of divine telos. Only Calvinists insist on that. But it does seem to be at least logically possible that some such loss is consistent with God’s purposing and wanting all to know and love him. It all (the question of telos, what possible worlds God faced, what risks God would be willing to take, etc.) hangs on the metaphysics of love. You be that metaphysic precludes the possibility that God would risk anybody’s eternal loss. I don’t see that.

Mephi: I posit that a potential divine telos was that fundamentally based in LOVE insofar as the divine intent would be for ALL POSSIBLE SENTIENT BEINGS genuinely and authentically receive and reciprocate God's love to God and all other beings such that the Triune love of the Godhead is "expanded" in contingent reality. The "trinification" of Creation, we can call it. The supreme consummation of this divine telos would exist if ALL sentient creatures participated in God's love.

Tom: And it wouldn’t exist at all if any did not participate in that love? It’s metaphysically all or nothing? That last bold sentence is the key to it all. I can agree to everything else before that. But this last sentence reveals your metaphysic of love. You just don’t believe love could take such risks. That’s cool. But it’s important to note that this is a purely philosophical assumption made without any empirical evidence gained from the afterlife. I see some strengths to this, but it has some holes to. I don’t have the brains to sort it out. So I just cast my intellect at the feet of the Cross and, strangely enough, I really DO find that GOD is enough of an answer.

Mephi: Does the full actualization of this telos for any possible world, given all the relevant factors involved, render the potential for eternal self-destruction of any given sentient creation an UNAVOIDABLE postulation? After really looking at things over and over, I do NOT see this as a necessary postulation, metaphysically speaking.

Tom: I totally respect you. See, I have the same problems with saying the following is a necessary postulation, metaphysically speaking: The full actualization of this telos for all possible worlds, given all the relevant factors involved, render the inevitable and certain eternal bliss every sentient creation an UNAVOIDABLE postulation.

Mephi: The NEXT thing to assertain would, of course, be obvious...Does the full actualization of this telos for any possible world, given all the relevant factors involved, render the potential for eternal self-destruction of any given sentient creation an ACCEPTABLE postulation?

Tom: Yep. It all comes down to the metaphysics of love. That’s how to best find certainty on this question. But it won’t (and this was my point) give us any more existential leverage or hope or peace than knowing simply that a God who is love will always do what’s right and best.

Can we be childlike in our trust?

Mephi: All of this leads me inexorably to the conclusion that there is at least one possible world where God is ASSURED to actualize the full consumation of God's divine telos in Creation. A state where all sentient beings end up dancing with the Trinity.

Sooooooo: IF God is omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly loving, omnibenevolent AND...IF God's telos truly is that ALL POSSIBLE SENTIENT BEINGS genuinely and authentically receive and reciprocate God's love to God and all other beings such that the Triune love of the Godhead is "expanded" in contingent reality, AND...IF there is at least ONE possible world where the full actualization of God's telos can be assured by God...

…then universalism is most likely true.

Tom: More than “most likely.” It MUST be true. But I’m not at all convinced that in a world purposed for loving relationship that the full actualization (no one person lost) of God’s purpose can be “assured” by God.

Mephi: Note something, Tom. I'm not saying that there is NO WAY that the eternal self-destruction of sentient creatures can be an allowable risk to God. That's NOT what I'm saying. If I were to suppose another divine telos (perhaps like a version of my glorification principle!), I'd have no problems doing that. What I am saying is that insofar as I believe that my proposed divine telos may be truly God's intention, there is no real way that the eternal self-destruction of sentient creatures can be an allowable risk to God.

Tom: Now that’s strange. How can you hold to the view of “God is love” that you do, a view that makes universalism inevitable in a world where each individual is purposed for loving relationship, but then admit that this same loving God is free to PURPOSE something less than this for creation? Oh my goodness!

Mephi: If universalism ain't true, it just ain't. There are other harsh realities about life...and my wanting them to be different won't change them. Again, if universalism isn't true, it doesn't stop the fact of the ChristWork and the incredible love shown therein. So, I'm not "dogmatic" about universalism HAVING to be true for Christianity to be true. I'm just about trying to ascertain what faith passes the consistency, coherence, adequacy, and applicability tests as far as worldview evalutation. So far, this is where I'm at.

Tom: Loving it!

Gotta run!

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/5/2005 9:34:45 PM (GMT-6)

Meph,

1. Life: can total solidification against God take place here?

2. Satan: will he be saved?

3.scripture: those passages that deal with arguments for and against Universalism.

You may not have evidence from the post-mortem (except, perhaps, the claims of those who died as unbelievers and came back to life), but you do have scripture. That, I feel, is where we should go next. Even if Tom were in agreement with you, we ought to see what, if anything, God may have said about the subject. A scripture case against (or the silence of) Universal is what is holding Tom back from your view.

Starkman

Mephi: You were absolutely right. It comes down to the metaphysics of love. I hear you saying...

For a loving relationship with God to be genuine, nothing must interfere with the sentient creature's ability to "freely" choose for or against God...and nothing outside of the agent's "free" choices can totally determine the END RESULT of those choices in any dimension, by any orchestration, for any reason.

Tom: You’ll probably want to shoot me for saying this, but no this isn’t quite my view. I mean, yeah it is, but I just have to tweak it a bit:

a) “…nothing must interfere with the creature’s ability to ‘freely’ choose…” Influence is an interference of sorts, and for sure God and others who love us can influence our choice. They just can “determine” it.

b) “…nothing outside the agent’s ‘free’ choices can totally determine the end result…” I think so, right. The undetermined agent has to play a “necessary” part. The part is necessary (i.e., the choice), but whether or not they play it “for” God is contingent precisely because it’s undetermined. So the end result is a “mutually determined” or synergistic affair. I don’t see that in Talbott’s (or your) scheme. Talbott just admits that the end result (a person’s ‘destiny’) is unilaterally and unconditionally determined by God. We get to determine for ourselves ‘when’ we get to heaven and ‘what sort of shape we’re in’ when we get there (but even that is wiped away because we get to grow in heaven!), but we don’t determine ‘that’ we get there, and it’s this final ‘that’ which I see undermining the metaphysics of love.

So I’d say something like:

For a person to enter, engage in, and enjoy a personal and loving relationship with another person, she must be free to determine for herself whether or not she enters, engages in, and enjoys such a relationship.

That “the person” determines this is what makes the relationship “personal,” and that they do it in response to the worth and value of the other person, and in order to affirm that worth and value, is what makes it “loving.” I can’t see how Talbott doesn’t end up destroying both the “personal” and “loving” aspects of salvation by saying God alone determines ‘that’ the person will choose for God. He basically backs the “person” into a corner where it’s impossible for them to do anything but choose for God.

Mephi: This necessarily precludes any type of "intervention" that would render movement towards ultimate bliss inevitable, and therefore certain.

Tom: I think so, yeah.

Mephi: The implications from this are diametrically opposed to my view: Because God is love, God will not allow us to languish in our self-destructive deceptions and self-deceptions unto ULTIMATE HARM.

That's it. Seriously. The metaphysics of love.

Tom: It all boils down to that (philosophically at least), the metaphysics of love. This is why I also questioned your conceding that God could have purposed the world for something that DIDN’T include universal salvation. Which sort of universalist are you? Are you a) one who believes God could have purposed the world for something like the ‘glorification principle’ and so let some go to hell and some come to heaven? Or are you b) one who believes God in fact purposed everybody for consummate love precisely BECAUSE “God is love,” so that establishing any other purpose for creation would not be consistent with God’s being love? See it? It confuses me to hear you say “Because God is love God will not allow us to languish in self-destruction until ultimate hard” but then say God could have purposed the for something else that IS compatible with his allowing some people to ultimately harm themselves.

It seems to me that “God is love” ought to limit the possible worlds God could have created, so that your ‘glorification’ as a purpose for creation, one in which some DO ultimately harm themselves, is out. That is, “God is love” is true in EVERY possible world God could create, which relatives the glorification principle (if it doesn’t do completely away with it). So I’m wondering how it is you think “God is love” can mean God EITHER a) purposes every individual for love and guarantees that everybody makes it, or b) go with the glorification principle which IS consistent with some not making it. If “love” can do (b), then love can risk everybody not making it. But DENYING this risk in ANY conceivable world is at the heart of Talbott’s defense. A “God is love” COULD NOT purpose us for anything BUT consummated love. So it seems you’d have to agree that a world in which everybody is guaranteed to make it (because God determines that for them) is the only kind of world populated with sentient responsible creations that God can possibly create.

Mephi: I don't believe that a loving being allows something like that for the sake of "freedom." Somehow, it seems like you do.

Tom: Not that, naw. Who would risk hell “for the sake of freedom”? Freedom isn’t worth that. But love is. You keep saying I’m insisting on this or that “for the sake of freedom.” But it’s the metaphysics of love we’re talking about, not the metaphysics of freedom. Freedom has no intrinsic value of itself. It’s only important because of the sort of relationship it makes possible to us. So I think a loving being would allow freedom “for the sake of love.” But I agree he would not allow hell “for the sake of freedom.” That’s different. The point is, it might not be up to God to decide whether or not freedom is required by love. If this is a metaphysical rule of love, then freedom has to be there, like the rules of logic. They just are. God either creates such a world (of sentient responsible and personal creatures with LFW), or he doesn’t create a world with such creatures at all.

Mephi: From Reitan: Marilyn McCord Adams, in her fine essay "The Problem of Hell", reminds us in vivid terms of the conditions under which human beings develop their capacity to make choices. We start out ignorant and helpless, and only gradually develop a picture of the world, influenced by others who are just as imperfect as we. From early on we are confronted with problems that we cannot adequately grasp of fully cope with, and in response to which we mount (without fully conscious calculation) inefficient adaptational strategies. These strategies eventually become entrenched in our adult personalities. Having thus begun immature, we arrive at adulthood in a state of impaired freedom, as our childhood adaptational strategies continue to distort our perceptions and behaviours.

We can surely imagine that someone who develops under those conditions might end up willfully embracing self-deception or bondage to sinful desires -- but it hardly seems right to claim that these choices were freely made, or that God should refuse to interfere with such choices out of respect for freedom. As Adams points out, given our broken state, we are no more competent to be entrusted with our eternal destinies that a toddler is to be entrusted with life-and-death decisions."

Tom: This is why I’m inclined to agree with Walls that where one’s eternal destiny is at stake, a loving God really would provide each person with an optimal level of grace such that disadvantages like these are dealt with but such that the person and not God (or conditions God unilaterally brings about) determines herself.

But Adams’ quote makes me wonder (and I’ve wanted to ask you this too), WHAT purpose then God had for this temporary and probationary earthly existence? I mean, look. You agree that the situation Adams describes is real. Stuff happens to people when they’re young and they end up being mass murderers or whatever. Then they go to hell for this. And when they finally hit rock bottom after screaming at God for a thousand years, there’s 1% of their “self” left. God ultimately saves it and takes it to heaven.

How is THIS not AS problematic for Adams as the traditional view of hell? I mean, OK, it’s not forever. But still, how is it loving and just for God to create a world he knows is going to damn some people through the sheer disadvantage of such developed characters to, say, thousands of years in hell so that only 1% of their “self” is left? How is that not a raw deal?

So I agree. I think some kind of post-mortem arrangement makes sense, in which the limitations of the mentally handicapped, infants, and people who really had near-zero opportunity to develop any other way than they did due to really crummy influences are all removed and each person receives an optimal amount of grace whereby they can freely and responsible determine themselves.

Mephi: Tom, I really feel this. When I'm very honest with myself, I can easily see how my theology and theologizing is HEAVILY ties to my upbringing and my ISSUES. But hell, this is EVERYONE. Think about your own spiritual journey. We theologians always say that theology is primarily autobiographical…

Tom: True. So true.

Mephi: What this means, at least, is that in significant ways...we are NOT as free as we would like to think ourselves to be. We are swimming in faulty ideas and concepts about reality based on our generalized experiences of life. This does not mean that we necessarily have to fall into complete psychological and epistemological nihilism. What this DOES mean is that we have to admit that even if we DO have libertarian freedom, it is constrained by a NUMBER of factors outside of our control...as is our beliefs about God.

Tom: Seems to make sense to me.

Mephi: Once we take this fact seriously, then we can see how problematic it would be for God to allow ULTIMATE HARM come from allowing continued, intensified self-deception, especially if the telos of all creation is what we think it is. So, are we really going to say that God is going to allow beings mired in deception, falsehood, and self-deception throughout earthly existence to remain so post-mortem unto ULTIMATE eternal self-destruction...all the while RECOGNIZING that our minds are virtual tarpits of inaccuracy about ourselves and the nature of reality? I can completely understand God allowing epistemic distance in order that love can be chosen and so that we have some sense of self-efficacy. Please understand that there is NO problem there. Love MUST be chosen and the act cannot be coerced. However, when it comes to ULTIMATE HARM that is DUE to our illusions, I believe things become different.

Tom: I hear ya. I think you just have to bite the bullet and deny the love requires LFW. Because you certainly don’t have LFW in the end.

Mephi: What if the ONLY WAY to ensure that no one would endure ULTIMATE HARM (via solidifying in self-deception and decpition) would be to effectively ENSURE eternal bliss, given the constitution of reality?

Tom: Then I’d have to deny TWT1 (that love requires freedom).

Mephi: It seems to me like you would be willing to preserve the "love requires freedom" idea to the bitter end as far as saying that libertarian freedom (and all of it's implication) CANNOT be abridged in any way if love is to be genuine. This would include a "rock-bottom" experience that lead to a unidirectional movement towards solidification with God. Libertarian freedom must be upheld...even if it necessitates the risk of multiple people experiencing eternal self-destruction.

Tom: TWT1 is either a metaphysical law or its not.

Mephi: You said: (emphasis mine): “But this last sentence reveals your metaphysic of love. You just don’t believe love could take such risks. That’s cool. But it’s important to note that this is a purely philosophical assumption made without any empirical evidence gained from the afterlife. I see some strengths to this, but it has some holes too. I don’t have the brains to sort it out. So I just cast my intellect at the feet of the Cross and, strangely enough, I really DO find that GOD is enough of an answer.”

The bolded part is where I think you're wrong. First of all, how the heck would I get empirical evidence FROM THE AFTERLIFE? That made no sense.

Tom: Well, it just makes sense to recognize that we don’t have empirical evidence in this case (Talbott and Walls both mention this), so we have to rely on philosophical arguments. That’s OK. I just thought it out to make us a bit more hesitant about being dogmatic.

Mephi: What does make sense though is the EXPERIENTIAL evidence we have right here on earth. But, you choose Doctor B, Tom. I really think that my moral dictum makes complete sense to you. You kept saying in a post before that "in this life" it makes sense. But, for the life of me, I didn't understand why you couldn't expand this to the next life.

Tom: I didn’t limit my reply to your Doctor experiment to making sense only in this life. I think it makes sense in the life to come as well. What I tried to point out is that this experience of yours doesn’t prove what you think it proves. You can get an alcoholic dried out, or do something to permanently make drug addiction an impossibility for someone, but this doesn’t guarantee that they’ll love you. The choice to love is entirely in a different sphere. Drugs + operation to remove drug addiction does not = choice of drug addict to love (or to relate in ANY particular way).

If God can’t unconditionally guarantee that we not ultimately harm ourselves without also guaranteeing that we choose to relate to him, then TWT1 is out the window and LFW isn’t necessary for anything. If God can so determine us with respect to relationship, love, and morality, without our exercising LFW, then hey, a loving God (since “love” is what’s driving universalism, right?) would so determine everything so that we not only all make it, but we all make it without doing ANY damage to creation, without going to hell AT ALL. You really need to show WHY libertarian free will is necessary for us in this life if what you’re saying about God determining us in hell is true.

Mephi: You did not answer the question. I let you get away with it...but I think it needs to be answered. An answer to my question would have been...

Yes, Meph, it IS in alignment with God's perfect loving and moral character for God to try to assertively INTERVENE on that person's behalf, in your scenario.

or...

No, Meph, it is NOT in alignment with God's perfect loving and moral character for God to try to assertively INTERVENE on that person's behalf, in your scenario.

I could assume that you would say yes.

Tom: If the intervention sets in motion a causal chain of events that ends in our saying “yes” to God, then I’d say “No,” this is not in line with the metaphysics of love. I’d say this because I so believe in TWT1. I don’t have any way, any category, for making sense of such determined choices. None. Detox isn’t an analogy. The doctor performing an operation to make drug addiction impossible isn’t an analogy either, because the operation doesn’t PUT THE CHOICE TO RELATE (in love or in any other way) INTO the addict.

So on the one hand (if Talbott is right) freely choosing eternal hell with eyes wide open is incoherent and meaningless while on the other hand I feel as strongly that God’s finagling (by whatever means, it doesn’t matter) a chain of events that effectively determines that sinners in hell ultimately choose him is incoherent and meaningless. So what do we do?

Mephi: Tom, again, what if the ONLY WAY to ensure that no one would endure ULTIMATE HARM (via solidifying in self-deception and decpition) would be to effectively ENSURE eternal bliss, given the constitution of reality? Would God do that? I think you are saying that God would NOT do this. I know this is what Jerry Walls would say. (And this is what Talbott and Reitan are trying to debate) Is that what you are saying?

Tom: Walls would say God COULD not do this. God can’t violate metaphysical laws (like the law of non-contradiction, or the law of love). I don’t know how to meaningfully disagree with him.

Peace out for now,

Tom

John: I am sorry if my view of hell or my expression of my view of hell has seemed non-chalant to you. As God as my witness, I would certainly wish hell didn't exist or wasn't eternal if I could be convinced by scripture. You completely don't even know me if you think for one second that I am nonchalant about anyone's suffering. I am a bit taken aback by your judgementalism towards me on this; I honestly would have thought such a thing were beneath you. How disappointing.

Tom: Sorry to have come across judgmental. That wasn’t my intention. I’m glad to know eternal conscious torment causes you such angst. I didn’t say that this was in fact not the case. All I said was “I’d feel more comfortable if…” this was expressed and out on the table. It was the absence of this from your posts that I commented on. That’s all. I specifically limited myself to your posts and avoided making any judgment about what was in fact the case about YOU.

Again, sorry to come across judgmental. Laika, you too man. Sorry to come across that way. I’m just trying to get us traditionalists to agonize “academically” a bit over hell.

Oh well.

Tom

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/7/2005 5:51:23 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Starkman) : 3/7/2005 5:23:36 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/7/2005 5:45:24 PM (GMT-6)