 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Omnibenevolence and the standard of "good" | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/12/2005 12:52 PM (GMT -6) |   |
sparknheart said...
Why do we choose to sin?
Ignorance – Love = Sin Actually I think we sin from some sort of combination of ignorance and a (mild to extreme) form of insanity.   
(If we knew how bad any kind of sin actually was, we'd be trembling with fear day in and day out, IMHO. In order for us to actually function and grow in loving God, we can't be held down by this fear. When we know what sin is AND still do it (and know that it's bad), it's irrational.)
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism.Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/12/2005 12:56:21 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/12/2005 9:48 PM (GMT -6) | |
Violin for God said...
sparknheart said...
Why do we choose to sin?
Ignorance – Love = Sin Actually I think we sin from some sort of combination of ignorance and a (mild to extreme) form of insanity.
(If we knew how bad any kind of sin actually was, we'd be trembling with fear day in and day out, IMHO. In order for us to actually function and grow in loving God, we can't be held down by this fear. When we know what sin is AND still do it (and know that it's bad), it's irrational.)
Hello Heather,
Hmm… the mad fear factor?
If I recall, back on the dog fight thread you mentioned a dream about fear. You stated it was easier to embrace the faith that “God is necessary good” because it helped alleviate your fears. John vainly argued with Tom that his assurance of God’s praiseworthiness held no more fear as Tom’s view. Thanks to Ross, he cleverly asked the same question that helped point out the fact that nobody has a “better God" when it comes to fear. In either view we find room for god to play a cruel joke on us. But as I stated, in the end we all have to put aside our intellectual reasoning and make a leap of faith.
Fear will shackle us to sin if we don’t face it. To face fear is to have courage to understand the truth. It’s through such faith we learn to appreciate the full meaning of saved by grace. This should be a welcome realization as it fosters a peace beyond understating.
”And he said to humankind,
'Truly, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom;
and to depart from evil is understanding." Job 28:28 (NRSV)
Shalom,
Mark
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/13/2005 8:44:35 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/13/2005 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | | "Sahid, man you are really attached to that skepticism thing, aren’t you? You acknowledge that our only hope is that God is good, and I agree. What I’m trying to get at is the how we know that it is at least much more probable that God is good than that he is not. Is it just a 50/50 choice for you?"
I would be very comfortable if we could know with something close to certainty that God will always be good. But all we really have to go on is his track record and his word. Both of these are, in my opinion, great. We can trust God more than we can trust anyone else, especially since he has sacrificed and gone through so much for us. Still, if God were the "evil demon," he might just act this way right up until the punch-line...
As to probabilities... well... it just depends what you mean. To me a nonzero, non-one probability implies randomness, not choice. Choice, for it to really be choice, must not be random. If I choose chocolate over vanilla because I was controlled by a random impulse, I was not really choosing. When dealing with the probability from our perspective of God always being good, I don't see how we can say anything other than 50/50. But that's not the faith-shattering distaster that many people take it to be.
Take, for instance, gravity. Gravity has (we assume) always worked in the same uniform matter that it has from the beginning of the universe. Even if we take this assumption to be a certainty, what are the odds that gravity will behave the same tomorrow? Well, there are two possibilities: it will or it wont, and we have no idea why gravity works the way it does (i.e. what causes gravity); we just know how it has worked in the present and past. So we can give no justified prediction of whether gravity will continue to be the same in the future. From our point of view, ignorant of the future, it's 50/50. Here's the important part: We still believe that gravity will work, and this belief is entirely a matter of unjustified, arational faith. There is absolutely no logic to it, except that faith in gravity makes our lives more orderly and plesant (if you follow Pascal, then you can call this logic).
This is the same kind of faith that we demonstrate when we believe God will always be good. From our perspective the odds are 50/50. But is that really so bad? If you were given a chance to bet your entire existence on red with the payoff being the existence of an all-powerful, all-wise God who loves you, wouldn't you take it? I would. 50/50 is really the best we could hope for because outside corroboration is by defintion impossible.
Still, it's frightening. Very frightening. If it lands on black, you don't know what to expect. Polycarp when he was about to be killed said, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?” That's kind of how I feel about it. He's been good, and I love him, so I'll trust him too.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 9/13/2005 7:12:42 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/14/2005 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | |
Hey Mark,
Hmm... I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to this so this post may come out a bit wacky. I don't think that post is really related to the post I made here a few days ago, though both do address "fear".
On the other thread (and some areas of my views have changed a bit since then), I said "I'm bringing [the dream] up to show why, at least for me, it is so important to conclude that there's no possibility that God might change His mind." Here, I think I meant this ontologically-speaking, given if our knowledge of God's character were epistemically inerrant.
But the part where I wrote "it is so important to conclude" does point to me making an epistemic claim... so... oops. Here's where I stand (at least today... I may change a bit tomorrow.)
Let's take, for the sake of argument, our knowledge of God to be 100% correct (no epistemic error). If, ontologically-speaking, God were able to change His mind and we knew this for certain, I'd think we'd basically be walking on egg-shells hoping to appease God enough to convince Him to not change His mind. But say, again ontologically-speaking, if God's character were set and He couldn't change His mind about His promises and such, we would not be fearing that God would change His mind, thus not walking on egg-shells but fully trusting Him.
Now of course we know that in reality, we don't have full (& inerrant) knowledge of God, so there is a degree of trust that comes into play. So sure, we could be wrong in our conclusions, but we must come to the best conclusions we can, and then simply trust that we did the best we could. So epistemically speaking, since we’re still trying to figure out what the best conclusions of this discussion might be, that's where I come back to the posts I wrote on 9/8 – 9/9. It seems the most logical conclusion (as Spock would say?) is to trust that God won’t change.
I am still thinking things out though... 
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/14/2005 1:22 PM (GMT -6) | | | By the way...
Tom, I think your new avatar has been chosen (from ThatDarnCat's post on page 1 from 9/8/2005):
---------------------------------------------------------------
TGB says "hi"
---------------------------------------------
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/14/2005 11:29 PM (GMT -6) | |
Violin for God said...
Hey Mark,
Hmm... I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to this so this post may come out a bit wacky. I don't think that post is really related to the post I made here a few days ago, though both do address "fear".
On the other thread (and some areas of my views have changed a bit since then), I said "I'm bringing [the dream] up to show why, at least for me, it is so important to conclude that there's no possibility that God might change His mind." Here, I think I meant this ontologically-speaking, given if our knowledge of God's character were epistemically inerrant.
But the part where I wrote "it is so important to conclude" does point to me making an epistemic claim... so... oops. Here's where I stand (at least today... I may change a bit tomorrow.)
Let's take, for the sake of argument, our knowledge of God to be 100% correct (no epistemic error). If, ontologically-speaking, God were able to change His mind and we knew this for certain, I'd think we'd basically be walking on egg-shells hoping to appease God enough to convince Him to not change His mind. But say, again ontologically-speaking, if God's character were set and He couldn't change His mind about His promises and such, we would not be fearing that God would change His mind, thus not walking on egg-shells but fully trusting Him.
Now of course we know that in reality, we don't have full (& inerrant) knowledge of God, so there is a degree of trust that comes into play. So sure, we could be wrong in our conclusions, but we must come to the best conclusions we can, and then simply trust that we did the best we could. So epistemically speaking, since we’re still trying to figure out what the best conclusions of this discussion might be, that's where I come back to the posts I wrote on 9/8 – 9/9. It seems the most logical conclusion (as Spock would say?) is to trust that God won’t change.
I am still thinking things out though...
Don’t all things change, especially things that are alive? Why would our Living God not change in at least some respects? How could he be alive as a person and not change to some extent, His emotions change, He becomes both angered and pleased. He suffers with us and rejoices with us, He’s alive as love is alive. But love can give rise to fear as love is always at risk, even to love God. That my friend is what I call faith.
I am still thinking things out... too.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/16/2005 11:45 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
But love can give rise to fear as love is always at risk, even to love God. That my friend is what I call faith.
I'm not sure I understand all you mean by that, but I like it. We aren't dealing with certainties or even "highly-probables," were dealing with faith.
IMHO, pure skepticism or doubt (not to be confused with an inquisitive questioning mind) becomes a great obstacle for deep faith.
Jesus answered them, "Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' it will be done. Matthew 21:21 (NRSV)
"Truly I tell you" means to me, that somethings have to be met with 100% certainty.
What kind of mountains of fear do you face? By having deep faith, mountains of fear can be disposed.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/22/2005 3:38:16 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/17/2005 7:04 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Hey Mark,
Oops, I guess I should have clarified what I mean by “change”. (I did a similar thing on the Dogfight thread – I clarified what I meant there too). I meant that it seems the most logical conclusion is to trust that God won’t change from being benevolent to a mean trickster when we meet God face to face in the end. Also earlier in the thread you quoted, I was talking about God not changing His mind about His (unconditional/non-contingent) promises.
Of course I believe that God changes His mind, when God created the world He changed from being potential creator to actual creator; sometimes He’s pleased with us and other times displeased with us, so He changes from being pleased to displeased… but here I’m talking solely about God changing from being omnibenevolent to nonbenevolent and trustful vs. distrustful.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/22/2005 3:45 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...I read "have faith and do not doubt" as a kind of parallelism - saying the same thing two different ways. Maybe I'm wrong to do so; if so, someone set me straight. If doubt here is seen as "non-faith," then me and Jesus don't have a problem. I'm not saying doubt is always the negative of faith in the Bible; it just looks like it here.
Sahid, if you say faith and doubt are opposites, one being the negative of the other, then how can skepticism and doubt help strengthen your faith when they run in two separate and opposite directions.
It seems like the father of this child had faith, but he still asked Jesus to help him with his doubts.
Jesus said to him, "If you are able!--All things can be done for the one who believes." Immediately the father of the child cried out, "I believe; help my unbelief!" Mark 9:23-24
Skepticism deters faith,
Mark
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/22/2005 3:54:53 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/26/2005 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Spark: Sahid, if you say faith and doubt are opposites, one being the negative of the other, then how can skepticism and doubt help strengthen your faith when they run in two separate and opposite directions.
"I'm not saying doubt is always the negative of faith in the Bible; it just looks like it here." If by doubt we mean "un-faith," then doubt is not helpful. When doubt is made equivalent to skepticism, it means something very different. A "doubt" that is sure that God is not to be trusted isn't really doubt. That's certainty. A "faith" that is sure that God is to be trusted is not faith. That's certainty too. If the cardinal virtues were to be Certainty, Hope, and Love, the Bible should say so. I seems to me that biblical faith is very connected with hope - hope of things unseen, things that we have no empirical proof of.
Spark: It seems like the father of this child had faith, but he still asked Jesus to help him with his doubts.
Jesus said to him, "If you are able!--All things can be done for the one who believes." Immediately the father of the child cried out, "I believe; help my unbelief!" Mark 9:23-24
One more time. "I'm not saying doubt is always the negative of faith in the Bible." You are playing semantic games here. If you define doubt as unbelief, then yeah, doubt is bad. Same with skepticism. If you define a skeptic as one who does not believe, then skepticism is bad. But if you define skepticism that way, you are not using it in the same way that I am.
Here's a question for you: How could the father both believe and not believe at the same time? If unbelief = skepticism, how could this skeptical father demonstrate faith?
Certainty kills faith before it's had a chance to grow.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 9/26/2005 3:36:05 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/28/2005 3:41 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
Here's a question for you: How could the father both believe and not believe at the same time? If unbelief = skepticism, how could this skeptical father demonstrate faith?
I don't know, Saint Thomas comes to mind.
Maybe it comes back to love can give rise to fear as love is always at risk. So, fear feeds doubt that hinders the leap of faith needed to love.
In other words, doubt kills love with a hesitation to act in any passing moment, love gone by for all eternity.
Sahid: "Certainty kills faith before it's had a chance to grow."
Yes that can be true. When we think we know it all we reveal our ignorance.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/28/2005 9:46:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/28/2005 9:13 PM (GMT -6) | |
Violin for God said...
Hey Mark,
Oops, I guess I should have clarified what I mean by “change”. (I did a similar thing on the Dogfight thread – I clarified what I meant there too). I meant that it seems the most logical conclusion is to trust that God won’t change from being benevolent to a mean trickster when we meet God face to face in the end. Also earlier in the thread you quoted, I was talking about God not changing His mind about His (unconditional/non-contingent) promises.
Of course I believe that God changes His mind, when God created the world He changed from being potential creator to actual creator; sometimes He’s pleased with us and other times displeased with us, so He changes from being pleased to displeased… but here I’m talking solely about God changing from being omnibenevolent to nonbenevolent and trustful vs. distrustful.
I think I understand where you’re coming from, Heather. I think your view might very well be more comforting in some respects. I confessed early in this thread that Alan posits, what seems like, a “better god”, which could easily be seen as a more comforting God. Similar, Calvinism adheres to an all controlling deterministic view of God, claiming he is more sovereign, in which one could also regard as being more comforting then that of the OV. In any case, fear of the unknown is deep, very deep; deep as in death, deep as in the faith needed to love.
Does either faith or fear play into the Godhead, do any persons of the trinity fear that another person of the trinity might stop being faithful. If not, then why should we ever think God will change from being omnibenevolent and trustful?
Necessarily good is an essential attribute of the Godhead that is evoked by the Three Persons of the Trinity, manifested through their volition to love.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/28/2005 10:06:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 9/29/2005 2:02 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Mark: I confessed early in this thread that Alan posits, what seems like, a “better god”, which could easily be seen as a more comforting God.
Heather: Yeah, I agree, it does seem that in the concept of the “better god”, the one that is inherently good and doesn’t have to try does seem like one who would be more easily trusted than the “other god” that has to work at being good. There was also the concept of “praiseworthy” that was brought up a while ago which I’d like to discuss again, because I wonder if I’m wrong in how I perceive “praiseworthy”. It has multiple usages in my mind: one type for us and another type re: God. Does God have to do something good in order to be praiseworthy, or can God be praiseworthy simply by the nature of who He is, being One who is awe-some & so huge/big/amazing?
--------------------
Mark: Similar, Calvinism adheres to an all controlling deterministic view of God, claiming he is more sovereign, in which one could also regard as being more comforting then that of the OV.
Heather: God is only in as much control as He wants to be, no more & no less (I think Alan has me trained well in this statement ;) ). With the Calvinists’ perspective on God, it seems that they say in order for God to be sovereign, He must be in control of everything including our decisions; He must have determined everything. (Still from their perspective,) the OFV believes God is not in control of our decisions, thus He is not fully sovereign in the OFV. However, with the OFV as far as my take on it is, God can take over at any time. He can take over individual people if He sees fit, even without our knowing it. Now if God really does or not, I’m not sure, but He still has as much control as He wants and can trump at any time.
-------------------
Mark: In any case, fear of the unknown is deep, very deep; deep as in death, deep as in the faith needed to love.
Heather: Quite the truth there! And because of this, at least for me, sometimes fear of being wrong about what I believe drives me to figuring out what is truth, particularly about salvation.
-------------
Mark: Does either faith or fear play into the Godhead, do any persons of the trinity fear that another person of the trinity might stop being faithful. If not, then why should we ever think God will change from being omnibenevolent and trustful?
Heather: I don’t think so. Regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I don’t think they have LFW in the sense of being able to turn away from the essential nature of Deity. I think they have CFW, and when we get to heaven, we won’t have LFW either, we’ll have CFW, because our characters will be solidified into what we chose it to be in this life. None of the Godhead can choose to turn from being omnibenevolent, and can’t stop being faithful, if God is essentially omnibenevolent. Along with 1 John 4:18, “There is no fear in love because perfect love casts out all fear”, God is that perfect love, the “teleía agápee", in which there is no deficit and no possibility for a deficit to form. As to your second question, it simply seems to be the best conclusion we can come to (see the “wager” I wrote and response I gave to Ross when he asked if I think it’s all a 50/50 gamble).
-------------
Mark: Necessarily good is an essential attribute of the Godhead that is evoked by the Three Persons of the Trinity, manifested through their volition to love.
Heather: Amen! 
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism.Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/29/2005 2:05:27 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:28 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 |
|
|