quote:

---

I said the omni-WORDS were Hellenistic (I’ll stand corrected if you give me a Hebrew equivalent). In fact, this whole way of "doing theology" – breaking down God’s attributes into distinct abstract categories – is part of the Greek, not Hebrew, tradition. STILL, I don’t have a problem with it, in and of itself. It’s just that we need to be careful we aren’t allowing what we might think is a self-evident DEFINITION of the OMNI word to transform the meaning of the biblical concept we’re using it to express.

---

Meph:
Fine. My mistake. I thought that you were saying that the omni-CONCEPTS were derived specifical from Greek tradition. Like some type of "Nth" theology. So, we are cool.

**************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

I thought you made the case pretty well in your own posting. "Metaphysical" attributes (as they are sometimes labelled) differ from "moral" attributes (as they are sometimes labeled) in that for the former, but not the latter, the attribute can be applied to one who has the capacity to manifest it, whether they do so or not, whereas this can’t be said of the latter. The mere capacity to exercise all power makes one omnipotent, whereas the mere capacity to be virtuous does not make one virtuous. To fail to exemplify perfect goodness is simply to not be perfectly good.

---

This is why I believe the Son could "set aside" his omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience and still be God, but he could not set aside THE DIVINE CHARACTER and yet be God.


Meph:

quote:

---

Actually, that is not what I argued at all. I probably wasn't clear. I've said that OMNIPOTENCE, because of 1st and 2nd order typing, is the ONLY ONE out of the ones we are looking at that good be qualified while still LOGICALLY being considered "omnipotence" I specifically said that all that OTHERS cannot do this and to qualify them basically negates their primary meaning. Their is no difference in the moral and metaphysical attributes in this area. I specifically gave an example showing that the mere CAPACITY to be omnipresent doesn't make something omnipresent. This breaks your idea. Hopefully, this clears up the misunderstanding, and I hope that it shows that omnibenevolence is INDEED in the same boat as the other stuff.

---

On the relinquishing of the omnis. To me, this was just common sense. A fully human being cannot be the omnis, by definition. But I think we are not looking at something here. It depends on HOW you want to define "omnibenevolence" It seems clear we don't just want to use capacity here. We want the definition to be ontologically descriptive. (My point for ALL of them) But, I think that the ONLY reason that we prefer the moral over the metaphysical ones here is because, if you think about it, it's possible for a HUMAN BEING to possess the moral ones. This is what made Jesus sinless, right? What I mean is that it is POSSIBLE for a human being to be so constructed that they CANNOT do any volitional immoral acts. It is not possible to construct an omnipresent human being. But, Doc, this is merely incidental. This says NOTHING about the ability to qualify omnibenevolence. It just shows the NATURAL LIMITATIONS of the incarnational process.

To sum up, I contend, still, that there is no logical basis upon which you say that the moral category of omnibenevolence is different from the metaphysical categories in terms of qualification. ONLY OMNIPOTENCE can be logically construed such that capacity is distinct from EXERCISE of said capacity, and still be "omnipotence" NO OTHER ONES can do this, including omnibenevolence...unless you want to have the problems I mentioned above. All I ask for is consistency. If you want to qualify omniscience or omnipresence, I ask that you do the same for omnibenevolence. It's only fair.

*****************************************

THE BIGGIE

Doc, let's go over this. Now, this is ONE thing that I KNOW from all my reading that the majority of open view theists believe...

1) God can do unilateral action.
2) God can use this unilateral action to MAKE SURE that, where applicable to keep things on track, things happen like God wants them to.

Really look at these. Ponder them. I know you've said this in your works too. These have important implications, NOT ONLY for the overall plan of history, but also EACH EVENT that makes up history. What this basically tells me is that WHENEVER things look to be occuring such that a MAJOR COG in God's overall plan may be affected, God can and WILL manage the situation, such that his ultimate victory is assured. It is feasible to say that God, using his infinite intelligence, looks at all possibilities and sees WHICH ONES could cause him MORE damage to his plan than he feels is wise. (Remember your CEO analogy, Doc?) What he decides as part of his "rule-making" is to either by constitution OR by working at the right time, he will USE UNILATERAL ACTION to insure that those big snafu problems don't arise, where his opponents may get the overall upper hand.

But don't we see what this means? Let's go to your analogy. You worked it well. You said:

quote:

---

It’s not that God ever WANTS to loose a piece, but sometimes it cannot be prevented. To keep the upper hand in the game, sometimes a certain pawn in a certain position at a certain juncture is "too important" to loose, so something else has to be sacrificed to protect it. At other times, however, the strategy calls for this same pawn to be taken.

---

LOOK AT THIS, PEOPLE! This is what is called "acceptable risk!" The pawn of which he speaks is seen as LESS IMPORTANT in the big scheme of things and, in some manner, MORE EXPENDIBLE than other pieces. The fact that the chessmaster doesn't want to lose any pieces is irrevelant. The fact that matters here is that the chessmaster RECOGNIZES which pieces are more important to his overall plan of winning. And he guards those, EVEN at the expense of some other pieces. Now, let's look at this from another angle. What does this mean for the pieces that end up getting preserved to a great extent? It says that THEY are really important to God's plan. They are NOT within the chessmasters "acceptable range of loss"

Bringing it to God. We can say that God has an acceptable range of loss in this thing. There are some people and actions in this reality that could contribute to God's really losing the upper hand. ON THAT BASIS, those people and actions are MORE IMPORTANT to God's overall goal than others. For example, Abraham. If we can say that Abraham was CRUCIAL to God's overall plan, wouldn't it stand to reason that God would take EXTRA CARE of Abraham to make sure nothing happened to him? I think so. What we can definitely say is that for any INEXPENDIBLE person or state of affairs, certain providence would be in effect until that person or state of affairs had done what it needed to do. Perfect example: Jesus.

Luke 4:28-30
All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff.
But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.

John 7:30
At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come.

Nother contemporary example. Human self-extinction. We now have the capability to blow ourselves to nothingness. I think that this would place a REAL kink in God's plans. Now, it stands to reason that God is going to make sure that THAT doesn't happen. This is not to say that he wouldn't allow a nuclear disaster here or there, but he would make SURE that it wouldn't go to far.

See, Doc, I don't see how you can get away from this. The bottom line is that under God's little non-interference treaty, many of us are "acceptable risks" sometime or another, maybe all our lives. Just like the chessmaster would LOVE IT if he could win without losing a piece, so would God. However, I don't think God is naive. He knew that SOME would be lost. And he makes sure that only the NON-ESSENTIAL pieces are evey placed in danger. These are the rules, Doc.

Back to Daniel. I GUARANTEE you, if it were imperative to God's ultimate overarching plan for Daniel to have his prayer answered in ONE hour, it would have gotten answered in ONE hour! Surely, you know this. If you want to say that it was IMPERATIVE to God's ultimate plan for Daniel to be answered in one hour, and God COULDN'T get it done for 20 days, then I'd say that we have NO reason to believe that God can really completely win this whole thing. But we don't want to say THAT, now do we? So what's the other option, Doc? You know. We HAVE to say that answering Daniel's prayer sooner rather than later was NOT AS IMPERATIVE to God. It was low enough on the totem pole to allow the angel to fight his way their past the prince of Persia. Sure, it took 20 days, but that's cool. It's an ALLOWABLE, ACCEPTABLE risk for God.

This is not hard to get, people. Imagine you are a world class chef. Tonight, your kids want to help you make a dinner. It's a casual day and nothing is going one. Maybe some company will come over but that's about it. You say "Sure" You let your kids help significantly, giving them a great load of freedom. There's NOTHING really at stake for you. Now, imagine that it is the next day, a very important food critic, whose impressions can make or break the noteriety of a chef, is supposed to visit your house tonight to try your food. Your kids come really had fun yesterday and want to help like that again tonight. Would you let your kids help much, IF AT ALL, that particular night? I really don't think so. Why? Because a LOT is at stake now. It's the SAME way with God in this view.

Now, let's make it really hit home. Zosia. Doc, you HAVE to admit, man. If it were REALLY important to God's plan that Zosia live, SHE WOULDN'T HAVE DIED. You know this as well as I. This is NOT to say that God didn't care about her. What is it saying is just what you say...

quote:

---

Applied, I think you’re understanding that the outcome of various situations are "too important" to God to leave dependent on mediating agents makes an important point. But the "importance" does not attach to God’s valuation of each individual piece – as though Zosia was not infinitely important to God, whereas Abraham or someone else that God intervened to rescue was. In my view, every "pawn" in God’s "game" is infinitely important to God, for Christ died for them. The importance rather has to do with the structure of creation and the evolving strategy of "the game" (the war in creation).

---

As cool as this may sound on paper, doesn't this leave us with cold comfort? Let's think out some implications. Zosia gets her friggin EYES dug out in front of her mother by Nazis. Taking our above discussed thought, it becomes VERY apparent to me that, though God is sorry that she got killed in such a horrible fashion, it OBVIOUSLY wasn't that important to God's plan to have her be spared. Zosia was an acceptable risk. An expendible pawn in the big game of life. But there's another scenario even MORE interesting. Perhaps, Zosia's DEATH was what was the important thing to God's plan! Yeah, THAT's it! Her death was instrumental in God's great plan for some greater good. It would make SENSE! God can preserve SITUATIONS that need to happen for his plan to occur. Maybe this is one of those. Hmmm..

What I am demonstrating here, I think, is the LOGICAL RAMIFICATIONS for thinking this out. Every tragedy that occurs could be thought of in these terms:

1) An unfortunate, unwanted, THOUGH ULTIMATELY ACCEPTABLE risk that went bad. An loved, but EXPENDIBLE piece got lost.

2) The tragedy ITSELF was to be found in God's greater plan. This would be like my pawn being sacrificed so that I can take the opponent's bishop.

We could get away from all of this by basically saying that God makes up things as he goes along and that there IS no overarching, infallible plan. In other words, we could say that God REALLY, REALLY does stand to lose this whole thing. Can we accept that?


I believe that these are the logical ramifications of OUR open view thinking, Doc. So what's up. If we want to think the open view all the way out, we have to deal with this. My thinking could be way off. If so, just show me. Thanks.

Amen.



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

Doc, let's go over this. Now, this is ONE thing that I KNOW from all my reading that the majority of open view theists believe...

1) God can do unilateral action.
2) God can use this unilateral action to MAKE SURE that, where applicable to keep things on track, things happen like God wants them to.

---

quote:

---

I really REALLY try to avoid the expendable risk defence at all costs. To me this is just the same thing in classical theism that made me want to be an atheist only in a smaller degree. [Meph's Note: FRIGGIN BINGO!!!!!!!!!!] To me the only acceptable theodicy is one that never has to appeal to this argument.

---

Why? Because Wis is exactly right. To posit the "acceptable risk" thing is to have a SLIGHTLY lesser problem than classical theists do! You have God relegating people's EXISTENTIAL STRUGGLES to utilitarian modes of EXPEDIENCY. Not only that, but you also have some ABSURDLY arbitrary looking events (the little girl section above) where less-needy people seem to get MORE of the blessings. And the warfare worldview does not, I repeat, does NOT escape this at all. This is because according to Doc's view, there is a nigh infinite amount of possible reasons in the creation why tragedies happen, but not of direct action of God. Fine well and good. However, what is not made explicit is that these tragedies could ONLY occur in the context of God's ACCEPTABLE risk. Doc basically says this HIMSELF. And you know what this means. It means that God, taking into account all the possible ramifications of a given situation, said:


"Ok. Looking at the WORST THING that could happen to this person in X context, I deem this an acceptable risk. It won't ultimately hurt my chances of winning this whole thing. It will be a painful loss, but I won't lose the WAR over it."

And this happens for...EVERY...SITUATION...OF...TRAGEDY. Feeling me, guys?


2) This tacitly admits that God does NOT operate as best as he can for every situation.

For any given NON-ESSENTIAL (to the war strategy) person or action, it CANNOT be said that God is doing ALL that he can for them. It could very well be the case that God is doing absolutely NOTHING for them. God could just let his angels be doing most to all of the work. (Read some of "This Present Darkness" or something along those lines) Or he could delegate the responsibility to OTHER human beings. Instead of unilaterally working in accordance to prayer, God "convenants" with Himself to merely incite OTHER PEOPLE to answer the prayer. Now, if the people God "works on" decides of their own free will NOT to help the praying person then the praying person is STUCK OUT! But as anyone can see God did not do his BEST to help. Analogously, we could return to the Superman analogy with the bank robbers. Instead of directly deciding to go help, he decides to merely call the OTHER police precincts and tell them what's going on...and that help is needed. Now, be honest, would YOU consider this meaning Supes did "all that he could do"? Heck, no, you wouldn't. And the same thing holds for God.



*******************************************

Now, the fun stuff. Think about what were to happen if you were MIRACULOUSLY HEALED of a terminal cancer or something. What are some of the things you could say happened with this view. Allow me to posit.

1) God UNILATERALLY healed me. It was in God's overall plan that I HAD to be healed.

2) God initiated OTHER agents or things to heal me (angelic?)...and things popped of JUST RIGHT for me to be healed. Everything and everyone worked like they were supposed to, more or less. I was FORTUNATE to be healed, because all kinds of things in creation could have messed it up.


What if your spouse and 3 kids just got killed? (We will accept Doc's view of God NOT using tragedy like this)

1) The tragedy was in the realm of ACCEPTABLE RISK. (This is the flip side of #2 above) God REALLY wanted this NOT to happen, but it's non-occurance wasn't ESSENTIAL to God's overarching plan. As such, there was the possibility for this to happen. And unfortunately, by way of bad luck, demonic oppression, or angelic ineptitude, I am the victim of an ACCEPTABLE risk gone bad.

Anyone have any problems with this? Are there any answers to this?





PS: An aside. Some of you may wonder why I am so theocentric. So very much asserting that God can do whatever he wants to do and that God keeps himself first. The reason is simple. 1) Personal experience and 2) What you see before you. Wis is right, in that if one REALLY thinks all these theodicy attempts out, they fail quite miserably. (Even Doc's, IMO) One is left saying what Doc basically said: Just accept that God is omnibenevolent (in the "completely kenotic" manner, DESPITE all existential or logical evidence to the contrary. We end up making ENDLESS excuses for God. It's always made me reminiscent of the young child who keeps making up excuses in her head for WHY her father always ignores her and doesnt spend time with her.

"He's so tired from work. He just needs rest."

"The game is on. He never gets to watch the game. That's cool."

"Well, I do talk a lot. And he has a lot on his mind..."

etc...etc...

Though these can be truly valid reasons for SOME of the behavior, after a while, it ends up SOUNDING like excuses more than reasons...especially the more arbitrary the behavior gets. (ie. Dad is off and would rather be picking his toenails than talking to his daughter)

This is why I will say until I am convinced otherwise:

UNLESS we posit that an all-good God truly sees Himself as the CHIEF END and arbiter of reality [meaning that He always ultimately puts HIMSELF and His purposes first, EVEN to the extent of sometimes NOT working towards the maximal happiness of all INDIVIDUAL non-divine sentient beings], the concept of an all-good, all-powerful, THEISTIC (not DEISTIC) God is completely UNINTELLIGIBLE in the face of evil. You may as well be saying "Maosis Gleepoberos!" It's tantamount to nonsense.


PSS: Oh, I almost forgot. Remember. ALL we would have to do to eliminate this enigma is to say (like process theology) that their IS no overall overarching plan of victory...and that God could truly lose everything. The war. Creation. Everything. Can we deal with that?

Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/17/2001 11:24:36 AM

quote:

---

1. Let it be granted that God wants X degree of love from created agents.

2. Let it be granted that this entails that this metaphysically entails that God grants X amount of morally responsible freedom to created agents. This is the covenant of non-coersion I speak of.

---

Meph:
This is fine. What 1 and 3 stipulate is that God grants each created agent POWER TO THE CONTRARY, giving them what you would consider "morally responsible freedom" And this gives them the metaphysical ability to exert this freedom. What has been unstated should be the following:

A. Let it be granted that, for the metaphysical ability given in 1 & 2 to be realized in life, there MUST be some amount of "life-space" whereby it can flourish.

This, I believe, would go with your thesis on "the power to influence" As you've said, things could be construed where moral choices become mere SURVIVAL choices...and some level of ambiguity is needed. For example, if God immediately killed everyone who stole maliciously, it would no longer be a moral choice of whether to steal or not, but a LIFE-OR-DEATH question. You've mentioned this before, I know. This is quite understandable.

quote:

---

3. Let it be granted that God is resolved to never create a being who could destroy him or thwart his over a plan for creation to have a bride.

---

Would this be an adequate #3? I figured that it would be better to say this:

Let it be granted that God is resolved to never create OR ALLOW a being, event, or state of affairs that could destroy OR OVERTHROW Him or thwart his overall plan to be victorious for creation to have a bride.


I think your #3 is far too narrow. It doesn't take into account:

1) the collective effect of free-willed being that may be greater than the sum of its parts. (Satan and his people overthrowing Heaven, etc)

2) an event that could scratch God's plan. (Satan tossing an asteroid our way, creating an extinction level event)

3) individual persons who are integral to said plan being destroyed of something (Jesus being killed before time, Issac being killed or maimed, etc)



Once you look at things like this, then I believe things get much more complex. How would God know WHAT type of beings, situations, and events WOULD even give a %1 chance of his enemies defeating his purposes? He'd have to check any and ALL possibilities. Moreover, he'd have to do exactly what I suggested.

1) Make the constitution of contingent reality such that some of those possibilities cannot ever come to be. [Note: This is what your #3 spoke to]

2) For those who's constituitions CANNOT be altered from the jump, but COULD possibly disrupt things for God, God will UNILATERALLY take action to insure that the snafus don't occur. [Note:It is THIS possibility I don't think you took into consideration.]

[Late note: I just saw possibly WHY you framed your #3 the way that you did. If all the problems could be relegated to the constitution of created persons, then, by definition, failing to create those beings would solve the problem completely. However, as I hopefully showed, that's not the best way to construe things]


As you might think, this looks like it would take much manipulation of events "forethought" (if you could call it that), and evaluation. This would consider WHAT things to be avoided...and HOW to avoid them. And this, Doc, is the seat of my whole line of thinking.




************************************************

quote:

---

Mephi's personalized examples have a lot of emotive tug, and they should. War is hell. And in the middle of atrocities it is emotively understandable to rage at the creation as a whole."The game," as we've analogically called it, simply sucks. Indeed, in the midst of tragedy, objective rational thinking seems cold, and, from a pastoral perspective, is even inappropriate. But it nevertheless appropriate and necessary to in other circumstances think about the "why" of things. This is theodicy, and the 3 point structure I alluded to above is to my mind the most explanatory perspective available. I'm wondering how Mephi's theocentric perspective explains more.

---

Meph:

There is only one way that it explains more to me. It shows HOW God can feel this whole thing "worth it." It shows how God can honestly be OK with the idea of the inevitable eternal torment of at least one person. It show how God can honestly be OK with the idea of a worldview of "acceptable risk" where utilitarianism rules...and the potential for war was so unavoidable. Especially when, as I've tried to state earlier, NONE of this needed to be. We don't have to try to basically say that God choose to actualize this because, in some mysterious way of evaluating thing, he deemed it "worth it" We can just easily say that God deemed it worthy primarily because he WANTED to actualize his wishes. Maybe I'm terribly off on this. Interestingly enough, (no kidding) ALL of the non-theistic friends and acquaintences (and some theists as well) with whom I discuss this issue see my point quite clearly and agree with it. They say that the rationale is sound, though, they don't necessarily like the moral implications.

See, Doc. We know war is hell. But we have to ask ourselves in any given situation like this: WAS THE WAR JUSTIFIABLE? More to the point for our discussion: If the war could have been avoided, SHOULD it have been? And on what basis can THAT decision be made? If you notice, this is basically what I've been asking for some time.




************************************************

Doc would say:

quote:

---

"Because love is the goal of creation, people must be free -- even to do horrendous things, such as get drunk and drive. If his goal for love is to be realized, he can control some things, but not everything. He did not ordain that your son get killed (HERE'S the key, and significant, difference with classical theism), but can you understand why he created the kind of world in which tragedies like this had to be allowed? He grieves with you and is even now at work to bring good out of this tragedy. And we can fix our eyes on heaven when you'll be with your son again and we'll all finally experience creation as it was intended to be. But right now, its a warzone and a time of much travail."

---

Meph:

Doc wonders what I would say to this woman. Here you go. This is ONLY if she continues to press the issue about WHY it happened or WHY God didn't do anything to stop it...

"M'aam. I'll just be honest with you. I have no idea why this happened the way it did. I have NO idea what is going on with God or creation that allowed this tragedy to happen. Actually, there are only a FEW things I know at this point. I know that God loves you and your daughter. God shows us this clearly through Jesus. I know that life is often unfair. Daily living shows us. Finally, I know that God knows more about this than we could ever know. The Word of God assures us of this. And I believe that all this gives us reason to do something else that I know that God would want us to do at this time: Trust in His immense love, even though we cannot make sense of these type of situations. I know that it's hard. It's ok to be upset, hurt, and disappointed with God. It's ok to feel somewhat let down. We often expect God to be able to do more than he does. The Psalmists often felt this way in the Psalms. And I believe that, like them, we can be able to lean upon God's grace and try to get through this. And God will help us do that. Jesus gave us hints that Christian existence wouldn't be a problem-free. Sickness. Poverty. Death. It will be here. But, with the Holy Spirit's help, we can try to keep our minds on the love of Christ and the hope of glory in these times and keep pressing forward. "

I'm stopping there. I'd probably say more, but I think you get the gist. I believe that my statement would be, at least, somewhat effectual whether one accepts the warfare view or not. Moreover, it gets to the HEART of the matter: trusting God IN SPITE OF circumstances and leaning on Him. And this would be an HONEST answer. I honestly DON'T KNOW why it happened. It could have been demonic forces. It could have been some silly accident allowed by God. It could have been something that was USED by God in a certain sense. But I don't know ANY of these for certain. So why act like I do? Moreover, this doesn't sound like a vapid attempt to get God off the hook. (I've heard these, and I know you have too, Doc.)


************************************************

quote:

---

Relatedly, you know, and critique, what I mean when I speak of God's purposes. But what do you mean when you say God's purposes are "for himself?" You contrast God's purpose "for himself" with his purposes for us (viz. our maximal happiness is not part of his purpose). But can you then tell us what "God's purpose for himself" is? Is it to "love and delight in himself?" Would you tell this woman, "Sorry, but while having a growth fall from a nose (Wager's example) WAS important for God's purpose to love and delight in himself, your son's safety was NOT"? This hardly seems less brutal than the answer you have me give (which, as I said, isn't the answer I'd give).

---

This is restating what I said above. When I speak of God's purposes, I INCLUDE the warfare worldview. He placed the actualization of His OWN disposition (to create and love outside of himself) ABOVE the INDIVIDUAL well-being of all possible sentient beings. God places his OWN will and desire, at times, above merely the virtue of making the lives of all non-divine beings maximally happy. As such, God's "utilitarianism" has its only source of necessity in God's WILLING. Nothing more.

Something else. This whole thing is to show that, even with the open view, one STILL has to deal with essentially the same problems as classical theism, in this area...IF we insist on saying that God has the power to unilaterally do things AND has the power to ENSURE his ultimate victory.

[Note: If I'm not mistaking, this is something that process theologians like Griffin have been saying for quite some time, right?]

See, Doc, as you've said, it either comes down to God either not WILLING to help or God not being ABLE to help. However, with this line of thinking, I was hoping to show that by postulating 1)God's ability to unilaterally do things according to his "rules" at the beginning 2) God's "allowable" risktaking, one commits themselves to the following:

God's INABILITY to help ultimately comes from God's UNWILLINGNESS to help in certain situations, so that His ultimate prerogative may be fulfilled. In other words, the basal sense of necessity ends in God's WILLING.

Basically what I would like to get across, Doc, is that no amount of variables for this creation will ever remove the fundamental ARBITRARINESS of the whole system. Ever. THIS is why I think the way I do.

****************************************

We probably won't ever see eye to eye on this. But it's at least good to get each others' perspectives down. Thanks for allowing your ideas to be challenged. It's appreciated. Truly



Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/17/2001 2:59:44 PM

quote:

---

YES, he wanted to actualize his wishes. I agree. But WHAT are his wishes, Mephi? If you believe God is all good, his wishes must be all good. You admit his wishes lead God to "deem it worthy." So it makes sense to ask – indeed, in the light of the nightmare existence is for many, it is necessary to ask – how could God deem this creation, in which some will end up in eternal misery, "worthy"? To say God wanted to doesn’t explain anything.

As you note, believe we have enough to go on in Scripture to understand the object of God’s "wishes": namely, to have a ‘bride" who receives, embodies and reflects back (NOTE the threefoldness) his triune love. And I believe Scripture and some reasoning can lead us to understand why achieving this objective required somewhat open creation in which dreams, and nightmares, can come true.

---

Meph:
I want to try to explain my logic. See how it works for you.

Omnibenevolence includes SELF-DENIAL when it benefits others. In other words, an omnibenevolent being would ALWAYS place the well-being, health, and wholeness of others BEFORE his or her own wishes, no matter how noble they may seem...as much as lies within the DIRECT power of said being.

Explaining. We understand that finite beings MUST have self-interest, simply because they are finite. They have to HAVE in order to GIVE. However, the situation is different with the INFINITE being, God. Because contingent reality is "contingent", God could COMPLETELY deny his own desires in ALL manners and not be lessened from his state of "unsurpassable" bliss. (From Doc's trinitarian take)

Now, let's illustrate the thinking:

-- For any infinite being God, where God is COMPLETE self-sufficient and existing in "unsurpassable" bliss, God is in the position to completely deny any and ALL of God's desires, wishes, and dispositions for CONTINGENT realities without damage to itself.

--If God is omnibenevolent, then God will ALWAYS value EACH POTENIAL INDIVIDUAL SENTIENT BEING's ultimate well being above God's own dispositions and desires, such that if ONE non-divine being is in danger of significant harm from God's disposition being actualized, God will NOT actualize it.

--An eternal, unspeakable torture of any non-divine being is bad. Very bad. And according to the Biblical data, this is what exists.

--It was an INEVITABILITY that at least, ONE non-divine sentient being WOULD end up in the state of eternal, unspeakable torture. God, being infinitely intelligent, omniscient and a participant in an open future, would not know WHICH non-divine being would go, but God knows that at least one WILL go.

--Due to God's 1) self-sufficiency 2)"unsurpassable" relationality and bliss 3) omnibenevolence, it is reasonable to say that God would rather NOT create any beings at all...than to allow ONE sentient being (whom he values infinitely) to suffer an excruciating fate like that.


Now, if you notice, the definition of omnibenevolence used above PRECLUDES a being doing something that puts his or her OWN WISHES above ANY other being in existence. This is what I meant by "completely kenotic" Remember, self-denial for others is a VIRTUE that any being that would qualify to be "all-good" MUST possess, because it is something that we pretty much universally deem good. Because of God's nature this "self-denial" characteristic metaphysically CAN go unqualified. Hence, my problem. I see know way how Doc's view of God, if omnibenevolent, according to my first definition above, could LOGICALLY deem any contingent reality as "worth" creating that has as an INEVITABILITY a sentient being suffering the worst torture conceivable, EVEN IF IT IS SELF-INFLICTED. It doesn't make sense.

Rewind time. My statement from the "Was It Worth It" post:

quote:

---

If we can say that God can hold his OWN wishes and desires as PRIMARY over all other concerns, though not IGNORING the wishes and desires of others, even to the extent of not operating for the MAXIMAL enjoyment and pleasure of those others...and STILL be all-good and all-wise, I affirm that God is all-good and all-wise.

---

You probably already see what this does, right? It QUALIFIES the definition of "omnibenevolence" above. Omnibenevolence would NOT entail being "completely kenotic" anymore. Like so...


Omnibenevolence includes SELF-DENIAL when it benefits others. In other words, an omnibenevolent being would SOMETIMES place the well-being, health, and wholeness of others before his or her own wishes, no matter how noble they may seem...as much as lies within the DIRECT power of said being.

What this would mean is that God can genuinely sacrifice some things for us, but he is not logically bound to ALWAYS place the ultimate well being of contingent realities before His OWN purposes. This way, an omnibenevolent God can look at the situation and say what follows:

I want to create morally free sentient non-divine beings with whom I can share my eternal love and who can DISTRIBUTE my eternal love amongst themselves. I realize that to do this, I have to accept the INEVITABILITY that at least one person will endlessly endure unimaginable self-chosen torture. I could deny my "disposition" to create and share love in this manner...

BUT I DON'T WANT TO

I WANT to have people enjoy my eternal love as my Bride, even if it means risking a whole HOST of people potentially enduring this tragic end. Even if it means risking MYSELF in the process. Therefore, because I WANT TO ACTUALIZE MY DISPOSITION in this matter, and my desires are the PRIMARY thing that I'm looking at here, I hereby deem it "worth it" that this contingent reality be created, rather than not.


I'm hoping that my thinking is coming across loud and clear. NOW, it makes PERFECT sense to me to say that an omnibenevolent God can create this world and consider it "worth it"! However, this introduces another thing into the mix. It has been generally said that God, to be all-good, HAS to do the most possible to promote the ultimate good of contingent beings. God has to do everything that he can do. This is usually posited within the SELF-LIMITATIONS that he has placed upon himself for this reality. But if my modified view of omnibenevolence is ACCEPTED as viable then we can logically say the following:

God DOES NOT have to do everything that he can do to promote the ultimate well being of all contingent reality WHERE to do so would CONFLICT with God's purposes or will.

We can easily say that, though God infinitely loves each individual sentient being and GENUINELY considers the MAXIMAL well-being of those beings in His decisions, He can, due to his willing, choose to do LESS than "all he can do" within even the self-limitations this world necessitates. THIS is how, I believe, the arbitrariness can BEST be explained. It's not a "greatest good" argument, but it does say that there MAY be divine willing behind certain calamities that we face.
Notice how this is not completely antithetical to many of the premises of the warfare worldview. It DOES, admittedly, enter something that makes the problem of evil notably more problematic. However, as I've tried to illustrate with this thread, I believe it to be the only REASONABLE, LOGICAL way to assert how God can honestly deem this reality "worth it" and STILL be considered omnibenevolent.


********************************************

Doc said:

quote:

---

It seems we differ in that I’m trying to get behind the arbitrariness, when you are not. I hear you conceding that God is as arbitrary as things appear: it just comes down to God’s wishes. If this is so, how does your view differ from Calvinism? (Related, does your openness perspective not affect your theodicy at all?)

---

Actually, your second sentence said it. I HAVE gotten behind the arbitrariness. Basically what I'm saying is that the arbitrariness lies in both creation AND God, though in different aspects. And I figured you knew about that. I know I talked to Modes about that. I've said before. One can EASILY appropriate the fundamental bases of your warfare worldview, including power to the contrary, and EVEN your 6 theses, WITHOUT coming to your same conclusions.

********************************************

Doc also said:

quote:

---

I grant your point that God’s "inability" ultimately comes down to God’s "unwillingness." This is why I, in contrast to process thought, speak of God’s self-limitation. But here is an important qualification, I believe. God’s unwillingness to prevent atrocities that don’t impact objective #3 is not a case by case matter, but a structural matter: it is due, as a metaphysical correlary, to God’s objectives #1 and #2 (to have beings who can love, hence be free and morally responsible). Given this decision, God’s inability to override freedom whenever and however he pleased is genuine – for it would violate objectives #1 and #2. In other words, God’s "inability" is no less genuine because it flows from his own decision. Given the decision, it is metaphysical in nature.

---

This is where we disagree. I say that it can ONLY be structural BECAUSE it was analyzed "case by case" first, by way of God's infinite intelligence. Remember my two ideas:

1) Make the constitution of contingent reality such that some of those possibilities cannot ever come to be.

2) For those whose constituitions CANNOT be altered from the jump, yet may STILL be problematic, God will UNILATERALLY take action to insure that the snafus don't occur when they arise.

To do this, ALL of the possible connections of possible events and agents had to be examined and dealt with. This logically entails a CASE-BY-CASE analysis.


Let's keep it moving. Yeehaw!



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/18/2001 10:03:51 AM

quote:

---

Given your definition of omnibenevolence, I can see why you'd have to refrain from applying it to God. But in my view it would NOT be all good for God to "ALWAYS value EACH POTENTIAL INDIVIDUAL SENTIENT BEINGS ULTIMATE WELL BENG ABOUT GOD'S OWN DISPOSITIONS AND DESIRES." Hence, the value of having a people who receive, embody and reflect back his glory is a higher value than ensuring that no one goes to hell, or in not creating at all. Mephi, I think we are in almost total agreement on this, except we define "omnibenevolence" differently. You seem to assume that the word must be anthropcentrically defined, and thus deny it of God. I think the word can be meaningfully applied in a theocentri fashion. But we both have a theocentric perspective on the purpose and ultimate value of creation.

---

What I'm getting from what you are saying is the following:

1) God decides that the value of having a people who "receive, embody and reflect back his glory is a higher value than ensuring that no one goes to hell, or in not creating at all from his own willing.

2) BECAUSE God has decided this, it MUST be the case that this is the "best" decision and "all-good"


This is amazingly resembling the Clarkian position of "whatever God does is good by definition" We ASSUME God is good and therefore, because God decided this, it MUST be good. But isn't this what is many compatibilists are chided for? They say basically the SAME THING, except they detail it for God ordaining all things. When they do this, it seems to me that many openness theologians make the point that, if "goodness" is to mean anything, there has to be some fundamental similarity between what humans call "good" and what God calls "good" This PRESUPPOSES that divine goodness is, at least, comparable to human goodness. And this goes against what you've said above, to me.

This is a highly realist (or should I say essentialist) view of "goodness" This proceeds from the chief assumption of God's ONTOLOGICAL and necessary goodness, does it not? I don't go that way. That's why I spent so much time trying to make HUMAN analogies from whence people could evaluate the issue (the Karamazov and Superman things) I figured that they were, in some way, representative of the moral issue in FINITE terms that we could somewhat grasp. Moreover, as you have mentioned before, we only have HUMAN categories from whence to talk about "benevolence." Therefore, it is logical to take that category, as we understand it, and apply it to God. That's what I did. I figured that NO HUMAN BEING could even be considered all-good UNLESS they, to the greatest extent POSSIBLE, promoted the well-being of all other beings, even to the point of self-denial. I thought that most everyone would surely agree with this. Taking this to be the case, when applied to an infinite being, it stood to reason that an INFINITE, self-sufficient being would not have a limitation on how much of itself could be DENIED for the benefit of other beings. This is where my thinking led.

Now, what I tried to show is that for an INFINITE, self-sufficient being as we have defined God to place its OWN values as having priority, even to the point of allowing someone else to fall into eternal torment, would be TACITLY to go against our HUMAN understanding of what an all-good being would do. Notice that this take is a more NOMINALISTIC take on God's goodness. And the reason why is simple. If we are just going to call God "all-good" and then, from that, ASSUME that God's decisions must be, ipso facto, "good", then ANYTHING God decided would be good. Taking your thinking, if God were to decide that ONLY accepting 100 sentient beings into his divine love out of the entire universe was "worth it" and "good", it would be, by definition! You see this, right?


Perhaps THIS is our main sticking point. Yep, I think so. I even disagreed with with your view of God's NECESSARY goodness when I read "Trinity and Process" If one rejects God's ontological NECESSARY goodness, then the problem rehashes itself. Yes, I DO think this is our main problem. I find that you may be inconsistent here. On one hand, you clearly want to have a very "Clarkian-Reformed" view of God's ontological goodness (by which everything else should be defined) when we speak on these matters. But then when compatibilists try to do this, you don't allow them to. Do you see how I may say this? If you were to be more consistent, I think that you would scrutinize God's choice HERE just as you have elsewhere.

Or perhaps I'm backwards. Are you saying that we should just TRUST that God made the "best" decision given all the factors? That though WE can't see it we should just TRUST that God did it right? (I'm prone to think this is what you are saying) If so, then we are in the same problem as directly above. We take a sort of fideism where we basically say that we cannot truly analyze the situation and it's a matter of faith. But I don't see how the compatibilists can't do the same thing. Like so...

Look, we believe that God created a compatibilistic universe. We just have to TRUST that God made the best decision, if this is indeed what He did. We can't know the mind of God, so trusting God is the best option.

See what I'm saying? If THAT'S where we are going, then we are at an impasse where both openness AND non-openness can retreat to. Just straight fideism. Now, what I've been assuming with this whole thing was that we were NOT content with merely doing this. I that we were going to basically analyze this whole thing as far as we could rationally.

Well, Doc, in the end, if you are going to either take the position of...

1) declaring God's ontological goodness and interpreting everything from that

or

2) fideism in God's wisdom

then, there is really nothing more to be said. We won't agree here. HOWEVER, I would like to say that IF this is the final landing point, that THIS OPTION SHOULD BE OPEN TO COMPATIBILISTS! In other words, they should be able to do exactly the same thing and not be considered being inconsistent or dodging the issue. Can we do this?

Your turn.



PS: You said it, Doc. I'm gonna miss all this convo. I have approximately 3 days before stuff gets too hectic to handle...AGAIN.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

In making decisions of right and wrong, God does follow an objective standard that is part of the very structure of reality. But that standard to which God adheres is not external to God--it is his own nature.

This raises a further question, however: Is God selfish? We have been taught that a grievous form of sin is selfishness--seeking one's own welfare and comfort to the disregard and even the detriment of others. Some would go so faras to claim that selfishness is the root principle, the very basis of sin. Yet here God seems to violate his own command against selfishness, for his highest goal is apparently his own glory.

We need to look more closely at the human sin of self-centeredness. The essence of the sin does not lie in preferring ourselves to others, but in preferring some finite thing to the supreme value, God. Thus, even an unselfish preference of some other person rather than God is wrong. The first commandment is to love the Lord with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength (Luke 10:27). The second command is to love our neighbor as ourselves. To put the second commandment in the place of the first is wrong and sinful.

Thus, for God to make his glory the supreme objective is not in conflict with his command against self-centeredness. Indeed, making his glory the supreme objective actually fulfills the command. So then, God has not said in essence, "Do as I say, not as I do." As the highest value in the universe, the source from which all else derives, God must choose his own glory ahead of all else. To do anything else would in effect be a case of idolatry.

---

I felt what Erickson was saying here. In that God values Himself as the supreme value and His glory as the supreme objective. But doesn't this pose a problem when we try to relate this to divine love and humanity?
What about Pia's quote about:

...Gloria Dei vivens homo: the glory of God is the human being, the whole human race, every individual person, fully alive.

Upon reflection, may this, at any time, morph into "God's supreme objective is maximal flourishing of non-God beings (including humanity)? But what about God being primary? Now, at first, this seems quite easy. One could try to blend the two (God as supreme value and non-divine beings as supreme value). We basically say that God's supreme value IS Himself and his supreme objective IS his glory...AND what this glory consists of is chiefly valuing other beings higher than Himself. But hopefully, we see that this does nothing but push the issue back few steps. PRACTICALLY speaking, there would be no difference between this idea and that of just saying that God's supreme value is OTHER PERSONS. Besides, when we speak about God having Himself as the supreme value, we MEAN something by that. We mean that God values Himself as supreme value OVER AND AGAINST other possible values. And what could these possible values be BUT non-divine realities (including sentient beings?)There is a hierarchy of priorities here.

Thus my problem. I could never see a good reconcilation of God having HIMSELF as the supreme value & God being omnibenevolent (in the respect of "love seeking not its own") It seemed to be very "either/or" Either God was completely omnibenevolent OR God had HIMSELF as the supreme value. This issue of "God of acceptable risk" is an outflow of this dilemma and my position on it.

HOWEVER,

Last night, around 4:30 am, I had an idea.

**********************************************


The Trinitarian Love of God and it's Possible Expressions.

I am big time indebted to Doc's "Trinity and Process" for all this. ('Preciate ya, Doc) Ok. Stick with me. This will get hairy. The idea of trinitarian love. Constantly self-giving, COMPLETELY altruistic, yada, yada. From what I understand, it can be argued that it is this perichoretic process between the 3 members of the Trinity that provides God with his essential existence of being LOVE. And the God wants to EXPRESS his unsurpassable trinitarian divine love. What this does is give ontological reason for saying that the ULTIMATE REALITY is love and that this concept is not outside the nature of God. From this standpoint, we can say that God is all-loving and all-good.

Fine, well, and good...

Now, here's my question. How does this relate to contingent beings? What I mean is this: Is there only ONE WAY to see the expression of God's trinitarian love? More to the point: Is it possible to show how an all-loving, all-good being can be significnantly MORALLY FREE? I think there is. First, an example.


Let's say that my wife and I have an unsupassable relationship with one another. We finish each other's thoughts. We abound in love for each other. We MUTUALLY SUBMIT to one another in that we genuinely esteem EACH OTHER higher than we do ourselves. We basically spend all of our time together in our own little world. One day, we decide that we want to help OTHER people feel just as happy as we do with each other. We BOTH AGREE that we want to bestow our wonderful love upon people OTHER than ourselves. There exist two scenarios.

Scenario 1:

We corporately decide that we are going to share love that we have with others. To the utmost of our natural abilities, we decide to esteem ALL other people better than ourselves. This goes for each individual that we come into contact with. In our minds, we are attempting to have a perichoretic relationship with others. EVERY DECISION we make takes all significant others into account and weighs their happiness (both individually and corporately) as HIGHER PRIORTITY that our happiness...and we do this in all cases. To be sure, many times, this love is not reciprocated but, with our definition of love, we EXERT it at all times. To sum up, we place OTHER PEOPLE'S WELL-BEING as the supreme value.

[Note: In a TRULY perichoretic relationship of the Trinity, this is EXACTLY the type of "love" we are talking about. Each member of the Trinity making ample room for one another, esteeming the OTHER members higher than itself. Deny this at your peril ]


Scenario 2:

We corporately decide that we are going to share our love with others. We decide that WE are going to be the ones to decide HOW we are going to EXPRESS our love in different situations. We want to bestow love and blessing upon others, but ACCORDING TO the way we choose to do so. In other words, all decision that we make will sincerely take all significant others into account and weight their happiness (both individually and corporately) as genuinely important factors...however, we ultimately decide that our own wishes are of HIGHER PRIORTITY then these other people. In fact, this may even entail certain disregard of some others. To sum up, we place OURSELVES as the supreme value.


This is what I've been wondering about, Doc and all. In BOTH scenarios, my wife and I are having the love and goodness within our personal relationships with one another. Therefore, the ontological reality of that love and goodness WITHIN THAT UNITY is satisfied...and to say that we were "loving" and "good" ok to say. However, you see how things turn out very differently based upon what is held as the supreme value when dealing with others. If we hold all others as our supreme value, then one can easily see how we would NEVER violate any INDIVIDUAL'S rights to life and happiness unless it were absolutely NECESSARY to the whole system (which itself would be necessary) But if we hold ourselves to be the supreme value, then one can just as easily see how we could sometimes violate an individual's (or more) rights to life and happiness, even when it is NOT necessary to the whole system.
Please note that, in the second scenario, it is NEVER precluded that my wife and I can exhibit altruistic actions for persons. We, in some cases, can risk an IRRATIONAL amount because of our wish to shower love. We can exhibit completely acts of selfless behavior. This is important.

If the second scenario is accepted, the question would become "While Dwayne and Antoinette are placing themselves as the supreme value, are they being GOOD and JUST in their expression of love?" But do we see how problematic that is? On what basis could contingent "others" judge the SUPREME VALUE that WE (my wife and I) have set for the distribution of our love? What higher basis in the system could there be besides the supreme value? My wife and I could say:

"Say, y'all. Why do you judge us? Do you realize that we didn't have to express our love to ANY of you AT ALL? Do you realize that we could have completely left you ALONE and not acknowledged your existence, and went about our business? We are doing THIS much out of the goodness of our hearts. Are you going to judge our GRACIOUS bestowing of love to you on your OWN basis?"

And we would be completely justified.

Of course, someone might try to say:

Well, by their actions, they REALLY don't seem to be showing "love" to others. Actually, they seem to be very arbitrary in this whole thing, even to the point of sometimes being mean. Sure, they do some REALLY nice things, but they seem to do some NOT so nice things too. It might have been better for us if they would have just left us alone.

To those people, I'd say "How in the world are you DEFINING love?" That's the crux of the issue. Is "love" as you define it COMPATIBLE with people valuing themselves as the supreme value for their lives? If not, then go ahead and say that. Then we have to deal with the implications of that definition of love. If so, then you must take the ramifications of ACKNOWLEDGING that fact.


Now, I want to bring this back to what I've been saying in this thread...AND the "Was It Worth It" thread. IF we say that God's trinitarian love being EXPRESSED to contingent reality is analogous to Scenario 1, then I don't see how in the world one can accept Doc's system as viable (with inevitable eternal torture for at least one non-divine sentient being) It's clear as day that God wouldn't have created. Just like in Scenario 1, my wife and I would never place our desires above that of any other persons (because OTHERS are our supreme value), so would God never place his plans or desires, no matter how noble, above the ultimate and maximal satisfaction of all individual non-sentient beings . However, if we say that God's trinitarian love being EXPRESSED to contingent reality is analogous to Scenario 2, then we can EASILY see how God could be TOLERANT (though not enjoying) of people going to hell. Anyone who holds to a standard of "love" that characterizes Scenario 1 would say that God's creation WAS NOT worth it. Too much was risked. Anyone who holds to a standard of "love" that characterizes Scenerio 2 (Hint:MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME) could say that God's creation WAS worth it.


But I've already said this. What else am I saying? I'm saying that, if we give validity to the situation of Scenario 2, then it's fully possible that we can assert that in God's expression of love to contingent beings could be of a different TYPE than the perichoretic truine love, but still the DIVINE love. We can say that it is feasible for God to be, in His triune constitution, the complete embodiment of self-sacrificing, altruistic love and goodness, while EXPRESSING his nature in manners LESS than perfectly altruistic (ie primarily egocentric) This line of thought is slightly circular in that before one can accept it, one has to accept that the exercise of love can involve someone keeping their interests PRIMARY in considerations. This could be incredibly explanatory of much of the ambiguity and arbitrariness that we see in God's behavior in history. It could explain how God's nature could be PERFECTLY loving and good, and yet God could be morally free with respect to contingent reality. What's REALLY COOL is that this could explain how Jesus Christ, the perfect image of God, can be so UNAMBIGUOUSLY against evil and perfectly sinless. Because God the Son is the 2nd person of the Trinity and is ESSENTIALLY within this eternal dance of perfectly altruistic, self-denying love, there would be NO contradiction in saying that Jesus of Nazareth illustrates this nature, and NOT the merely the contingent relation between God and the world! (THIS IS CRAZY IMPORTANT)


Is this too hard to believe? Isn't this kind of like the type of reasoning that Doc uses to assert the ontological freedom of God contra the process categories of Hartshorne? Whereas Hartshorne tries to assert the NECESSITY of creation to God, Doc asserts that God's self-sufficient, triune nature enables one to say that creation is TRULY contingent, making God's choice to create a FREE one. What's wrong with using the same line of thinking applied to differentiate the "variations" of love that God experiences? And what's more, this line of thought about love can ONLY be attributed to GOD. This goes in line with what Erickson said above. This is why I said in a previous post:

God is the only being who could be an primarily EGOCENTRIC rather than primarily ALTRUISTIC and still be considered "all-good" (if the definition of "all-good" allows for this)

Just like Doc's idea doesn't specify that God could create ANY possible reality, so one could affirm that God couldn't create just any reality. What I mean by this is that, because of God's nature, He would not be able to create a universe with absolutely NO love and goodness. But thinking about it, that makes perfect sense. If the main purpose of creation was to express the divine life and love, then it stands to reason that SOME of contingent reality has to express this love, making a universal hell an implausible option.


Ok. Now that I've laid this out, I first need to know ONE thing:

Can we accept a definition of "love" that allows for a type of egocentrism can PREDOMINATE over altruistic interests?

If we say yes, then I believe my ideas have some far reaching implications! If we say no, then I'd really like someone to explain to me HOW God's omnibenevolence can be defended against God's decision to create with the existence of an inevitable eternal torture.


Give it to me.



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

If these two perfect lovers really wanted to express theirlove and "open up" their "perfect" love to others, they couldn't qualify it toward the others any more than they qualify it toward each other.

---

If this is the case, then let's follow the logic. The two perfect lovers could NOT qualify their perichoretic love for ANY OTHER BEINGS upon which they are bestowing their love. Which means that the two perfect lovers would ALWAYS places the well-being of the OTHERS above themselves. My questions are STILL not being answered. HOW can this be and yet we say at the same time that God truly values HIMSELF as being the supreme value? It's not making sense to me, Doc...and after all this correspondence, my essential problem still hasn't been resolved.

Does anyone else see where I'm coming from?

******************************************************

About the John passage. It seems that you are basically using this to say that they love that God lavishes upon his people must be of the EXACT self-sacrificing, fully altruistic, mutually submitting love that goes on in the Trinity. I have problems with this take. Personally, I don't see how my take necessarily is incompatible with the John passage, if we are talking about the sharing of divine love. But Doc, to me, you NEVER seem to deal with the ramifications of what you are saying. If "perfect" love is defined as COMPLETE altruistic intent and ALWAYS valuing others above the self, there can be NO real reconciliation of God being the supreme value! I'll try to explain this. In the divine dance of the Trinity...

1) The Father esteems the Son and Spirit higher than Himself
2) The Son esteems the Spirit and the Father higher than Himself
3) The Spirit esteems the Father and Son Higher than himself.

Because of the perfect reciprocity and mutual submission going on, there is the PERFECTION of love. (I'm assuming that no one here believes in an inherent INEQUALITY between the Trinity members). Now factor in OTHER non-divine beings. We would then have to say that, with respect to the EXACT TYPE OF LOVE represented in the Trinity...

God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) esteems the NON-DIVINE beings that exist HIGHER than Godself.

Doc, this is just taking the thinking out to its logical conclusion. You are basically saying that God shares THIS love with us in hopes that we will RETURN this same love. (Note: In my scenario 2, sharing altruistic love with others in hope of being reciprocated is NOT precluded) However, you don't take all the ramifications of the thought. For God, the NON-DIVINE sentient beings would be the SUPREME VALUE and goal. God would EXIST for NON-DIVINE sentient beings. I don't see how you can get away from this.

Doc, I'm asking for help here. So far, you're not helping as much as I'm hoping. Again, are you saying that the ESSENCE of "perfect" love is the perichoretic, COMPLETELY altruistic idea? If so, I need to see this EXPLICITLY stated. Plus, I need for you to show the IMPLICATIONS of that idea, with respect to the SUPREME VALUE.

***************************************************

Doc says:

quote:

---

What they could do, and indeed would have to do, is qualify the conditions upon which people receive, embody and reflect back their perfect love. Sometimes its not perfectly loving to be nice, or endulging, or enabling. And never is it loving to be coercive: it must be chosen. But these conditions would be made precisely because they want to express the perfection of their love to others, not because they want in any way to conceal or dilute it.

---

First of all, in our discussion of God and creation, the type of love we are talking about ANTEDATES the existence of any said beings. So this seems to miss the point. What I hear you saying is that BECAUSE God wants to share his PERFECT love, some qualifications have to be made in CREATION to make this happen. However, this is not answering the pivotal question. Would God choose to share his perfect love with non-divine beings AT ALL, if it means the INEVITABLE eternal torture of at least one person? To answer this question, we have to understandtwo things:

1) What definition of "love" we are using and its capacities...and...
2) what that entails for God's options for creation.

In essence, MY questions are "higher" than your questions. Mine must be answered first.

*******************************************************

Wis, Pia, Modes, Tom. Say something. Am I just completely off here? Am I being unclear? Do you see the dilemma that I find myself in? Friggin HELP ME!!!! LOL





Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.