Man, I wish I had more time. This discussion is correlatively aligned with our discussions about "death as ultimate harm" vs. "worthy of death," "unconditionsl universalism" vs. "universalism conditioned by atonement," and all that other really fundamental stuff. To me, the biblical claim that atonement is required for the reconciliation of a sinner to God is fundamental to this whole discussion. Because if we say that God can forgive without atonement, as some do, then everything you're saying, Meph, makes sense to me. But if atonement truly is required for reconciliation as the biblical authors indicate, everthing changes, it seems to me. It makes divine wrath and these other biblical themes coherent, I think.

Unfortunately, I probably won't have time to post more than this time for several days. So until then...

Meph: Why oh why can't we think about that when we think about ANGER. Human ANIMALS experience anger...and it's completely understandable why.

Jeff: This is where Paul's claim that wrath is occassioned by conscious transgression becomes relevant. Animals, per that definition, can not experience anger/wrath. Wrath, per se, according to Paul, is a peculiarly moral emotion. It is only legitimately aroused when the "provoked" one perceives the offense as both morally wrong AND intentional. In this sense, even sins of ignorance don't provoke God's wrath, despite the evils that result from such sins. Sadness? Yes. Wrath? No.

But why would wrath, because it implies disfavor, be problematic unless we want to dump all the language about atonement and repentance being necessary conditions for reconciliation. We could even dump the language about atonement. But we're still left with the language about repentance being a condition for forgiveness/reconciliation.

So ironically, the only way I know to rule out repentance and/or atonement as conditions for divine forgiveness/reconciliation is to reduce us to the status of animals. In that case, it's as though our LFW gives us no unique status before God. For God, then, is only interested in the aesthetic quality of good--not any unique relational quality of sociality that LFW can occasion. That's why I contend that it is the "love the sinner but hate the sin" theology that is too simplistic. It seems to imply that our LFW nature implies no moral responsibility/accountability, when taken at literal face value.

Isn't that how we talk about animals? We love our dogs even when they hurt other sentient beings, because we don't hold them morally accountable. But God can't do that with LFW beings. LFW is unique and occasions unique and peculiarly moral sensibilites/realities. And disfavor seems to be one of them.

But we, as humans, have to be very careful about regulating our wrath, since it is typically provoked without full cognizance of all the relevant factors--like our own sinfulness or the "shoes" the other guy is "walking in." Why, e.g., would I allow unregulated anger at a person when that person is doing no evil greater than the ones I do?? Or why would I continue (past "sundown") to be angry without trying to understand all the reasons why a person might have done the evil and considering myself lest I be tempted also? THESE are the kinds of ways where our anger tends to be unlike God's.

More...

The idea of reconciliation is not dealing with God's love...more than it's dealing with BROKEN RELATIONSHIP.  A being of perfect love can LOVE everyone, but that doesn't mean that said being has UNBROKEN FELLOWSHIP with everyone.  And it is this broken fellowship, I believe, that is being addressed by the ideas of atonement and propitiation

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/4/2006 1:35:11 PM (GMT-5)

Wouldn't it be cool if we could say something like this...because we really believed it?

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/4/2006 3:44:24 PM (GMT-5)

Meph: ...God is UTTERLY disgusted with the sinful thoughts and behaviors that characterize your life everday. God can't stand them! Why? Because they keep you BOUND and UNFREE. They contribute to polluting the beauty God wants to actualize in Creation. They separate you from yourself and other human beings...but most of all, they separate you from experiencing the passionate love of God.

Jeff: I can go with the under-lined statement. But what that statement implies is just as disconcerting to the unbeliever (or at least can be) as saying God is angry at him/her. After all, most people experience anger but don't see it as an evil. But more importantly, that underlined statement says that the phrase "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin" can only mean that God has a benevolent attitude or disposition towards the sinner--with no guarantee of any particular benevolent effect. Most people tend to think of love in terms of loving effects that can be experienced.

So the absence of benevolent effect is the pertinent thing. Even more, sin will bring about judgment in addition to the mere absence of loving experience . So I don't see why adding on the idea that God's alienation/judgment is conditioned by and attended with a feeling makes that any more problematic (in fact, it is the anger that explains the judgment, whereas the absence of experienced loving effects is mere alienation).

You seem to be saying that sin has the same effect independent of what divine emotions are occasioned with it. Similarly, conflict in a marriage can create the same alienating effects whether or not the attending emotions are fear, hate, guilt, depression, or anger. The emotions simply explain the cause of the alienation/judgment, insomuch as emotions give rise to impulses unto action. They are not the effects (alienation/judgment), themselves. So I don't see the problem with divine anger as being just one divine emotion that explains one divine action--just judgment for intentional trespass (or as you say, the proverbial "wailing and gnashing of teeth").

In short, I don't see any practical difference in what we're saying. It seems to be mostly semantic. So although it might very well feel different to some based on which conception is held, I suspect this is more due to people holding a non-biblical definition of anger/wrath (which I'm assuming is: that emotion aroused by conscious trespass on another). 'Cause I doubt the average person finds it inappropriate to feel angry at one who intentionally mistreats another. I don't get that sense from folks I work around, anyway--if anything, humans tend to be self-righteously angry and hypocritically judgmental. The bigger problem is understanding what kinds of behavior are sinful/evil. For this is the knowledge that will curb unwarranted anger and the ills that attend it.

The only way I can see our difference as being more than semantic (assuming the atonement is accepted as producing real effects) is if what you mean by "wailing and gnashing of teeth" is not judgment, per se. Like its rehabilatating, only. In which case, it will not necessarily correspond to some standard of justice--it will only endure to the extent as is practically necessary to produce the desired change. In that case, the difference is even practially real (not just semantic), but its hard to see how an unbeliever would see the difference in a way that would make him feel better about it--wailing and gnashing of teeth is bad either way.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/4/2006 4:55:16 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/4/2006 5:28:31 PM (GMT-5)

Meph: How about this, Jeff?

Let's pretend I'm asking you the question...

Say, Jeff. Do you think that God can be ANGRY AT people for the willful sins what they do? If so, why?

Let me know what you'd really say to someone who asked you this question.

Jeff: Yes. Because PEOPLE get angry over willful evil. So it's simply being analogous to suppose that any ramifications for evil from God are motivated similarly. To suppose otherwise is to be non-analogous, unnecessarily (to my mind, at least).

Meph: Jeff: (emphasis mine)
'Cause I doubt the average person finds it inappropriate to feel angry at one who intentionally mistreats another.

Can you say "kingdom of this world", boys and girls? I knew you could...

Jeff: There are certain moral intuitions that virtually all people have. My only point is that most people seem to have an intuition that anger can be justified. So why would they find it problematic for God to have anger when He has more perogative than any created being?

Meph: 1) What standard of justice are you talking about? It sounds like you are talking PUNITIVE. Is this what you are talking about? Is this what you feel "judgment" should be about?

Jeff: I tend to think that the means-ends order of our world requires that actions have "fitting" consequences to render it rational. I think this is why most people tend to believe in "just" punishment--consequences that are "fitted" to the crime, so to speak. In that sense, I wouldn't say that judgement "should" be about punishment so much as just/fitting consequences simply are necessary to render our means-ends system completely rational so that rational LFW creatures can intelligently order their behavior according to rationally intelligible rules--like the golden rule.

The golden rule is an example of that kind of rule, since none of us can scientifically prove it to be maximally beneficial. It is the equivalent of a rational, axiomatic way of thinking about ethics apart from which all ethical thought is less intelligible. It is based on the necessary assumption (to my mind) that the moral order, with the personal impulses entailed in it, was adapted to ends of the concurrent, harmonious well-being of all sentient beings. Without that assumption, moral thinking can not be rational, I think.

In short, if God will not judge justly, He has not given us sufficient information in the form of human intuition for us to make rational sense of the world to warrant sufficient faith that there really is a moral order. So I think that just judgment is simply a necessary condition for a rational moral order.

Meph: 2) I think the unbeliever would see a BIG difference. Especially when she realizes that God TRULY IS on her side. God doesn't WANT her to experience unnecessary pain. And that whatever pain she experiences, God is willing to meet her on the other side of that pain. Now isn't THAT better than the old "God's-mad-at-you-so-you-are-going-to-hell-forever" line?

Jeff: I agree that God is TRULY on our side. If just judgment (independent of any rehabilitating effect) is a necessary condition for a rational moral order, then judgment can not be see as antithetical to our well-being. Its just an axiomatic, rational requirement of the moral order for rational beings just as much as the axioms of analogy and parsimony are required in the inductive understanding of natural laws. That's why I don't see just judgment, apart from any rehabilatory effect, as antithetical to universalism. Judgment comes in the end. But the belief in it is required up front for epistemological reasons.

The alternative, to my mind, is that God is only interested in our good in terms of the aesthetic value that good has, independent of the unique relational and societal value that LFW occasions. That's why my view of universalism requires the atonement. Because I think that in the same way that Paul says that the propitiation renders God just in justifying him who believes, it ALSO can render God just in saving ALL in His own time when all the temporal ends of Christ's earthly reign are fulfilled. But apart from the propitiatory effects of Christ's death, no one could be saved unto eternal life with God, because of the Fall. And this is because, apart from propitiation, the relational/societal value that God seeks from LFW creatures renders God bifurcated with respect to those creatures--just like we are.

And you are saying that God is bifurcated, too, I think. You just explain it somewhat differently. You do it in a way where God's bifurcation has a limit--the ultimate harm of eternal death/separation. But in the short run, God is truly limited, per your view, in what He can do with LFW creatures because of their LFW choices. This, to my mind, is a species of bifurcation.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/4/2006 6:42:06 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/4/2006 7:21:31 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/4/2006 7:23:39 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/4/2006 7:51:25 PM (GMT-5)