 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Relational 'Ontology'? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/2/2008 9:40 PM (GMT -6) |   | Sahid:
|
Who can tell God that he's wrong? Who could call God wrong? Anyone.
Euthyphro? |
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/2/2008 9:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Love is it's own "raison d'etre"!
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/3/2008 1:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: The question is, can human beings themselves dispose, freely and irrevocably, out of their potential for becoming? I’m less sure about this, but I think a case [can be made] for it's not being possible.
Zach: I think it is possible. It goes back to bilateral covenant….
Tom: I can appreciate your point, Zach. If the nature of God’s unilateral choice to create really does entail giving the creature the right to choose metaphysical annihilation, then God’s gone that route (since he obviously created). But I disagree with your ‘tyrant argument’ for thinking God’s choice to create necessarily entails his giving us this capacity. For the choice for annihilation and non-existence to be a ‘responsibly free’ choice, the creature should have sufficient understanding of the options; that is, such a choice should be a sufficiently informed choice. But I’m not sure that a sufficient understanding of the options is compatible with an agent’s choice for non-existence.
Also, you’re not describing a case in which a person disposes into a form of existing that is ‘hopeless’ because it’s beyond redemption, you’re describing a case in which there is ‘hope’, there’s the ‘possibilty of choosing God’ but the agent simply chooses annihilation over God. And you think this option has to be in place in order to make sense of or justify God’s having thrust us into an existence we didn’t choose under conditions we didn’t get to vote for.
But interestingly, you grant that there’s no objective standard by which God’s actions are to be judge, and that we can’t be arbitrators of truth, nor can there in fact be any grounds for truth outside of God. So on what basis are you arguing, Zach, that God’s a “tyrant” if in fact he has created us without granting us the capacity to self-annihilate? On what are you grounding the ‘truth’ of your claim that God would be a tyrant for making it impossible for us to self-destruct?
Zach: What sort of freedom matters for interpersonal love? I believe it is not just the freedom to live under God's loving rule or not. It is the freedom to walk away from the dilemma of this otherwise unilateral covenant.
Tom: That would be freedom without consequence, freedom to act with impunity, and that can’t be the sort of freedom that matters for interpersonal love either. You might think non-existence is consequence enough, but I don’t see how it is. To pass into non-existence is not to experience the consequence of anything. It’s pure escapism. It seems to me that the freedom that matters for interpersonal love is the freedom that holds us responsible for our choices. Giving people the option to self-annihilate is to fail to hold them responsible.
It also doesn’t follow that just because a person unilaterally determines the rules of the game to which we are bound that he’s a ‘tyrant’. Surely ‘tyrants’ are something more than this (viz., they also have ill-will for their subjects, do not love them, do not suffer on their behalf, frame the conditions of the game to insure they lose, arrange everything for their own self-benefit, etc.).
I guess we’ll find out in the end though!
T
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/3/2008 2:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: But I disagree with your ‘tyrant argument’ for thinking God’s choice to create necessarily entails his giving us this capacity.
Zach: Just to clarify. I think certain freedoms are necessarily entailed by God's choice to create in the particular way that he did. I think God could have done otherwise. I'm not (yet?) convinced that God's choices are somehow bound up in his nature so that he is unable to be unloving, for instance. I believe it is the case that God is love and that God is faithful, but I don't know how to get from there to saying God is necessarily loving and faithful. I'm not ready to say God is necessarily anything.
Tom: For the choice for annihilation and non-existence to be a ‘responsibly free’ choice, the creature should have sufficient understanding of the options; that is, such a choice should be a sufficiently informed choice. But I’m not sure that a sufficient understanding of the options is compatible with an agent’s choice for non-existence.
Zach: Agreed. But then, is any choice we make ever a responsibly free choice? As always we are left to make our choices based on the information available. But just to be clear, I'm not arguing for the necessity of annihilation for interpersonal love between creator and created. I'm am arguing for the necessity of this annihilation's possibility. For me, it matters that the door is open, I'd be happy to know that no one has used it. Maybe I draw too sharp a distinction between possibility and actualization. But although I can imagine certain choices that are so unappealing to me that I can say with reasonable certainty that I will never make them, I still affirm that I CAN make them; I possess the ability.
Tom: Also, you’re not describing a case in which a person disposes into a form of existing that is ‘hopeless’ because it’s beyond redemption, you’re describing a case in which there is ‘hope’, there’s the ‘possibilty of choosing God’ but the agent simply chooses annihilation over God. And you think this option has to be in place in order to make sense of or justify God’s having thrust us into an existence we didn’t choose under conditions we didn’t get to vote for.
Zach: Yes...
Tom: But interestingly, you grant that there’s no objective standard by which God’s actions are to be judge, and that we can’t be arbitrators of truth, nor can there in fact be any grounds for truth outside of God. So on what basis are you arguing, Zach, that God’s a “tyrant” if in fact he has created us without granting us the capacity to self-annihilate? On what are you grounding the ‘truth’ of your claim that God would be a tyrant for making it impossible for us to self-destruct?
Zach: Well, first of all, I shouldn't have used "tyrant". All I meant is "absolute authority." But I also wanted to use a word the connoted the absence of love which is entailed by such absolute authority. Nevertheless...
If God forces us to play the game, he is an "absolute authority who does so without regard for our desire" to participate in the game or not, regardless of how we eventually choose to play. On the most fundamental level of the choice to exist, God would be acting distinctly non-Christlike, non-loving. Note that I don't say "objectively bad, evil, or unjust". To say that God would be acting non-Christlike and non-loving in such a scenario is to say that he would not be acting in harmony with what we now call Christlike and loving. So the truth of my claim is grounded in the now-formed definitions of "Christlike" and "loving" and the God-of-this-scenario's non-conformity to them. It may have been possible for God to act in this way, but such an action is not what we now call Christlike or loving. We know Christ to have led Judas and Peter. He led them, but left them the room to choose for themselves. To posit a change in this when the consequences are permanent seems arbitrary to me. Not outside the realm of possibility, but also not what has been revealed to us as Christlike. Christ's parables which deal with hell are not conclusive on this subject, but they at least show that he appreciated the seriousness of our choices. If anyone is known for caring for others while still not gathering them "together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings", it is Jesus.
Tom: That would be freedom without consequence, freedom to act with impunity...
Zach: Yes... sort of...
Tom: and that can’t be the sort of freedom that matters for interpersonal love either.
Zach: I disagree. I think it is precisely the sort of freedom that matters for interpersonal love (between creator and created). Love, as defined in the person and teaching of Jesus, is the sort of attitude that is expressed in Matt 23:37. It respects the choice of the beloved. Otherwise we have the equivalent of a shotgun wedding that results in a happy marriage. Lovely consequences, but means which are the precise opposite of loving. Jesus says, "...but you were unwilling." The same rationale for respecting this decision can be applied to the decision to annihilate.
Tom: You might think non-existence is consequence enough, but I don’t see how it is. To pass into non-existence is not to experience the consequence of anything. It’s pure escapism.
Zach: Agreed. It is precisely the choice to exist which is at issue though. It's not that I think non-existence is consequence enough. It's that a loving (as defined in Christ) act is one where created persons are allowed "real" decisions, as opposed to the "less-than-real" decision of a trapped rat to go left or right or the "less-than-real" decision of the death-row prisoner to eat steak or lobster. The loving creator does not trap the created person in existence along with whatever consequences he sees fit; the loving creator "offers" existence in the same way that a loving savior offers salvation, that is, while at the same time permitting the created person to decline.
Tom: It seems to me that the freedom that matters for interpersonal love is the freedom that holds us responsible for our choices. Giving people the option to self-annihilate is to fail to hold them responsible.
Zach: I agree that self-annihilation fails to hold the person responsible. What I fail to see is how Christlike love entails holding people responsible. This is the Christ who said, "Forgive them; they don't know what they are doing."
Tom: It also doesn’t follow that just because a person unilaterally determines the rules of the game to which we are bound that he’s a ‘tyrant’. Surely ‘tyrants’ are something more than this (viz., they also have ill-will for their subjects, do not love them, do not suffer on their behalf, frame the conditions of the game to insure they lose, arrange everything for their own self-benefit, etc.).
Zach: Yeah, I didn't mean it that way. I couldn't use "lord", because that word already has been transformed. But I will say that unilateral determination of how subjects are bound is not consistent with Christlike-loving them. Or at least the way of harmonizing the two is not immediately apparent to me. To posit a creator who unilaterally binds subjects (in regards to things like existence, salvation, and morality) yet still loves them is to define love in such a way as to exclude it from the attitude of Jesus.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/3/2008 2:30:47 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/4/2008 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: Self-determination with eternal consequences?
Jeff: If you don't believe in an eternal state of unconsciousness (eternal death or annihilation), then eternal consequences means something like eternal suffering, given Christ's description of "the fire prepared for the devil and his angels" as a place of "torment." First of all, how does a finite life of sin justify eternal consequences? Second of all, if all current sinning doesn't naturally result in suffering, why would it do so in "hell" if what Christ called "hell" is just more natural consequences of sin? Yet Christ specifically called it "torment." But if it's not "natural," then how could it be anything other than purposefully-directed accountability?
If you DO believe in an eternal state of unconsciousness, then what is natural about some finite, but age-abiding, duration of torment that supposedly corresponds, in its finiteness, to a JUST recompense? Remember, Christ says, per John, that there is a ressurection to judgment as well as one to life. Nature, now, doesn't seem to even come close to rendering just compensation for people's works. But, again, if it's not "natural," then how could it be anything other than purposed accountability?
IOW, what other kind of consequences in addition to natural consequences and purposefully JUST consequences are there? And what are purposefully JUST consequences but bona-fide accountability/responsibility?
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/4/2008 6:46:14 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/4/2008 11:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff, you seem to be looking at afterlife entirely in terms of recompense, and that is not what I'm doing.
Jeff: If you don't believe in an eternal state of unconsciousness (eternal death or annihilation)...
Zach: I believe in the POSSIBILITY of annihilation.
Jeff: First of all, how does a finite life of sin justify eternal consequences?
Zach: Within the bounds of bilateral covenant anything can be justified so long as both parties agree beforehand. Under a unilateral covenant nothing need be justified, because the foundation of "morality" is might-makes-right. But, like I said, I'm not accepting the premise of this paragraph.
Jeff: Second of all, if all current sinning doesn't naturally result in suffering, why would it do so in "hell" if what Christ called "hell" is just more natural consequences of sin?
Zach: Perhaps because in eternity there is more time for nature to run it's course...
Jeff: Yet Christ specifically called it "torment." But if it's not "natural,"...
Zach: How is it that there cannot be any conjunction between torment and natural? Are you saying natural torment is an oxymoron?
But all that is a side issue, because...
Jeff: If you DO believe in an eternal state of unconsciousness...
Zach: I believe in it's possibility.
Jeff: what is natural about some finite, but age-abiding, duration of torment that supposedly corresponds, in its finiteness, to a JUST recompense?
Zach: I don't understand the question. I'm not claiming that self-annihilation necessarily comes with a waiting period of torment.
Jeff: Remember, Christ says, per John, that there is a ressurection to judgment as well as one to life.
Zach: I agree with this. I add also the possibility of annihilation. I'm specifically NOT putting self-annihilation under the larger category of resurrection to judgment. I'm specifically NOT calling self-annihilation a form of judgment. It is SELF-annihilation after all.
Jeff: Nature, now, doesn't seem to even come close to rendering just compensation for people's works. But, again, if it's not "natural," then how could it be anything other than purposed accountability?
Zach: The self-annihilation I am speaking of is an avoidance of this issue. Forcing this issue is itself an unloving act. There is the idea of divinely orchestrated postmortem justice (whether blessing or punishment) either directly brought about by nature or by divine fiat. This entire category would in no way include the self-annihilation I'm talking about. I'm saying love, respect for the choice of the other, requires that this sort of self-annihilation be available if any economy of justice is to be established along with creation.
Jeff: IOW, what other kind of consequences in addition to natural consequences and purposefully JUST consequences are there? And what are purposefully JUST consequences but bona-fide accountability/responsibility?
Zach: If you are talking about consequences amongst those who choose through non-self-annihilation to submit to justice, then that's a different story. But if we are talking one who chooses self-annihilation, then the consequence is self-annihilation. This is a decision that is "prior" to any question of justice.
It only makes sense to speak of justice within the framework of a bilateral covenant. For the most part we all already agree. Look at almost any authority figure and you will see a claim to authority which attempts to minimize unilateral language. Even (or especially) absolute monarchs and dictators hide their de facto authority behind de jure language. It's quite common for those who grasp authority to consider themselves freedom fighters or defenders of virtue. But why should they bother? Because they, as well as we, know that unilateral authority is perceived to be unjust by the vast majority of people. You may run across a benevolent dictator, but even then, his rule is not just (and it's certainly not-Christlike since Christ specifically spoke against it). Inasmuch as it is unilateral, this authority precedes any conception of justice. Unilateral authority is un-justified, because-I-said-so authority.
So, if God created this world and its moral rules before we had any say in the matter (which he did), and if he loves us specifically by allowing us to reject his good gifts (which he does), then he must also have allowed us a means of rejecting creation and its moral rules.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/4/2008 11:33:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/5/2008 1:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | Z: What I fail to see is how Christlike love entails holding people responsible. This is the Christ who said, "Forgive them; they don't know what they are doing."
AND...
It was a crowd of mostly Jews who were in town for a religious holiday. I think it's safe to say these had chosen (at least for the most part) against self-annihilation. Even Judas who commits suicide is filled with remorse - I assume for his betrayal - which would place him in the category of those who accept the bilateral covenant of existence, because he has bought into the idea of justice as part of existence.
AND...
Yes, it is Christlike to recognize the truth that a party to a bilateral covenant has held himself accountable.
J: Sounds like you're saying that it is not Christ-like for Christ to hold someone accountable. And that Christ is actually opposing the very accountability that parties to bilateral covenants hold themselves accountable too. But what I don't understand is, why are you assuming that people are BEING held accountable in a fire prepared for the devil and his angels (or whatever that means figuratively) by anyone other than Christ himself who is the one saying DEPART from me INTO that fire? Why would we think anyone would volitionally embrace such an accountability? Especially if God is against it? Is God's hands tied? If so, how?
It is one thing to say that God doesn't hold us accountable for what we can't know. No one disagrees with that. But you seem to be making the generalized claim that it is not Christ-like for God or Christ to hold someone accountable. This in turn means that if there will be any kind of future accountability, it will be due to something or someone other than God. What/who is that, if not the parties to the covenants themselves? And if it is, indeed, the parties acting on their own volition, how can God foreknow it?
On the other hand, if it is some state of affairs that God has ordained, independent of the volition of the parties, then in what sense can we say it is contrary to God to bring about a state of affairs that brings about a just recompense. BTW, I think there are post-mortem consequences that are due to pure, unadulterated grace, too.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/5/2008 1:59:22 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/8/2008 4:50 PM (GMT -6) | | J: But you seem to be making the generalized claim that it is not Christ-like for God or Christ to hold someone accountable. This in turn means that if there will be any kind of future accountability, it will be due to something or someone other than God. What/who is that, if not the parties to the covenants themselves? And if it is, indeed, the parties acting on their own volition, how can God foreknow it?
Z: I think this is a fair assessment. I think Lewis is on to something when he says, "Everyone who wishes it does. Never fear. There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell choose it. ... No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock, it is opened.'"
I take "holding accountable" to be the opposite of "forgiving". How can we be both held accountable and forgiven of the same sin by the same God? We can't! Square circles. I can't believe in both, so I choose to believe in forgiveness. I think that's what Christ teaches.
But I don't know why foreknowledge is a problem here. I'm not claiming that God knows future free decisions.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/8/2008 4:53:02 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/8/2008 8:52 PM (GMT -6) | | J: If self-annihilation or suicide is not possible for people in hell..
Z: I don't believe I've yet said anything on this one way or another. Revelation says that death and hades will be thrown into the lake of fire... for whatever that's worth.
J: then that must be a state of affairs brought about by God intentionally, wouldn't it?
Z: No. Even if we assume that self-annihilation is impossible in hell, this does not imply that this state of affairs is God's will. If I cut off my legs, I can't walk. There is no need to suppose that God is actively preventing me from walking. I have made the choice myself.
J: There would be no way he could know any such thing if they can choose their way out of "hell" at any point.
Z: I lean toward saying that hell is the consequence of finalized, irrevocable decision - final solidification. But even if I did not, this is not a problem of knowing future free decisions if Jesus was speaking in general. It's basically the same thing I've been beating my head against with Chaz.
J: Moreover, the gospels are full of language that tie forgiveness to repentance/faith anyway. I don't know what Christ ever said that implies he thought that divine forgiveness occurs independent of repentance or faith. But granted, those that are forgiven are not held accountable for that which is remitted/forgiven.
Z: I agree with all of this. 1 John: "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
CalvinnHobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 88
| Posted 4/25/2008 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, have you read any of F. Leron Shults' work (e.g., Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Turn to Relationality)? He was at Bethel here until leaving last year for a plush professorship in Norway. He's all about relationality and, consequently, has been considered pantheistic by some (e.g., William Lane Craig) and panentheistic by others (some of his students).
But the guy reads 300-page books in under an hour with near- (if not full-) photographic recall. He was reading over 1000 pages a night while he was still at Bethel here. Goodwill Hunting stuff. With most of the history of theology probably in his head, he probably has some interesting interaction with it in his book and might be worth reading. Can't say I've read it myself.
Hope the sands are treating you well. I'm hoping to make it to Teresa's reception as well, which I understand you'll be at. I hope we can connect.
Fare thee well,
~Shane
"There is no fit search after truth which does not, first of all, begin to live the truth which it knows." ~Horace Bushnell | | Back to Top | | |
| 43 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:11 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 |
|
|