 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/20/2008 1:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Zach: Pre-fall, God offers Adam and Eve a choice: live under my rules or die. Put those words in the mouth of another lord. They don't sound so loving anymore. What if president Bush said, "Live under my rules or die"? What if an even less popular lord said it? Certain people have said it, and we hate them for it. We call them oppressive and sinful.
Jeff: The vast majority of people actually approve of consequences for anti-social behavior. I suspect a simple majority include the death penalty as one of those "approved" consequences in certain cases. What people would find unpalatable is the idea that there is no chance for forgiveness even in a fallen world where seeming futility is inevitable. All religion seems to be bent on coming up with a theodicy to explain how eternal death is not an absolute certainty.
Theologically, the issue seems to be fundamentally related to the idea that God is sentient and will not endure, indefinitely, just any state of affairs in His creation. We see this in the Flood narrative. It seems that the narrative implies that God will only "strive" with certain degrees of sentiently dissatisfying behavior for so long--then His sentient dissatisfaction compels Him to change the state of affairs by acting. We see this same theme over and over--with Babel, with Sodom and Gomorrah, with the Exodous, and with the conquest of Caanan. In each case, God is acting providentially to bring to an end what He finds as either sentiently dissatisfying and/or teleologically frustrating (which is also sentiently dissatisfying).
The same theme is in the gospels. Christ predicts a future judgment of Israel and the nations that is in accordance with the prophecies of Daniel and others. Christ even describes it with analogies of the Flood and Lot's wife. He talks about it being the "days of vengeance." He says elsewhere that God, Himself, is an avenger of His elect and that praying will expedite that vengeance.
But for God to be acting and forebearing thus, it further implies He has an interest in the prolonging of the creational project. So there is this seeming balancing act between the end that He acheives by prolonging the creational project and His need to manage the project providentially to either render it sufficiently tolerable and/or teleologically on track (again, having to do with sentient satisfaction).
Let me just say at this point that if UR is true AND God is essentially benevolent, the longer the project continues, the more created beings will eventually partake of the blessedness of complete fellowship with God.
Zach: Short of gnostic pre-existence choosing, leaving room for legitimate suicide ending in annihilation is the only possible way I can see of drawing a distinction between God and a dictator who believes in the morality of his actions.
Jeff: Well, the first thing we have to settle is whether God is capable of maliciousness. If that is so, then the whole question is moot. Because then, I can't imagine what would ground or warrant the belief that God essentially desires fellowship with essentially social beings. His desires could change tomorrow. And as you have so often pointed out, there is a sense in which we can't apply probability to bona fide libertarian free-will. So if God is not essentially benevolent, as some extra-gospel texts say, the problem of withheld good seems to render plausible the idea that God may conceivably malicious tomorrow.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything Christ said that could only mean that God is essentially benevolent, like other verses do. Indeed, the saying, "all things are possible with God" can grammatically mean that maliciousness is "possible with God." But I'm not sure that, contextually, he meant to imply that. Indeed, if Christ ever alluded to the faithfulness of God, it would seem that such an attribute only has motivational significance if God is essentially faithful. If He can become unfaithful on a dime, then it's not particularly reassuring.
Zach: To put it another way, I disagree with this: "The voluntarily-chosen means to the highest sentient satisfaction of any one sentient being is consistent with and conducive to the highest sentient satisfaction of all other sentient beings."
This implies that no one can prefer non-existence to obedience and death. I find that hard to believe.
Jeff: If my volitional act of righeousness is inconsistent with or inconducive to my own highest overall sentient satisfaction and that of my fellow sentient beings, then I have no idea how righteousness is related to benevolence/love, and consequentialism is dead. The fact that one can prefer non-existence to obedience doesn't imply that a volitional act of righteousness by another was conducive to that preference. Indeed, I would say that such a preference can only exist due to ignorance of reality, if it is contrary to God's will for that person. Otherwise, God is not interested in the highest overall sentient satisfaction of that person, and that would seem to imply, to me, that God is not benevolent, but selfish. For it would mean that God receives satisfaction from the actions of others which can only cost them dissatisfaction.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/20/2008 12:30:08 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/21/2008 1:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Zach: Pre-fall, God offers Adam and Eve a choice: live under my rules or die. Put those words in the mouth of another lord. They don't sound so loving anymore. What if president Bush said, "Live under my rules or die"? What if an even less popular lord said it? Certain people have said it, and we hate them for it. We call them oppressive and sinful.
Tom: That's not it at all Bro. What if you as a life-guard knew the lake was shallow but refused to warn children of the dangers of diving in head-first? A youngster dives in and is crippled for life. When questioned about it you retort, "I didn't want to be a tyrant by warning them of the consequences" Come on.
There's no choosing with impunity. In Eden God's warning them of the consequences. Now, you might say God is reponsible for creating a situation in which consequences obtain at all by commanding them not to eat. And you'd be right. But that's not the act of a tyrant IF the command is loving, just, in our best interests, and necessary to our becoming. If it's those things, Zach, then it's good.
So, do you think all 'commands' or directions per se are tyrannical?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 1/21/2008 3:31 AM (GMT -6) | | First Tom: Now, you might say God is reponsible for creating a situation in which consequences obtain at all by commanding them not to eat. And you'd be right.
Zach: So far, we understand each other. This is exactly my "complaint."
Tom: But that's not the act of a tyrant IF the command is loving, just, in our best interests, and necessary to our becoming. If it's those things, Zach, then it's good.
Zach: I'll take these one at a time.
Loving: I take this to mean a relationship characterized by... well... the example and teachings of Christ: the willing submission to others, girding oneself with a towel and washing feet, and the like. So is forcing the obey-or-die choice loving? If it is, it is not immediately apparent how. Offering the obey-or-die choice seems to be consistent with Christlike love, but that's not what happens in the Eden story.
Just: We are talking about the basic choice of existence. God is within the bounds of justice to do whatever he wants with his objects. So if we apply the potter metaphor of Isaiah and Jeremiah to individuals, then yes God can do anything and it can be called 'just'. But if God grants individuals moral freedom, that is if we are persons and not merely objects, then there are limits to what may be called 'just'. And forcing an obey-or-die choice is (at first glance) well outside those limits.
Best interests: According to whom? According to the one imposing the obey-or-die choice? If we are granted even the most minimal dignity as persons I would expect our own interpretation of our best interests might be taken into account. When the conversation is between the individual and God, there is no third party that needs convincing. It is simply a "no thank you" followed by a "you'll take it and you'll like it". It may be true that "you'll like it," but to act upon this basis is to disregard the actual, present person in favor of the future person. This is quite a contrast to the One who stands at the door and knocks. If UR is assumed from the beginning, then any amount of forced bondage is justified if it is required to reach UR. But so far the only reason I heard to believe in UR is that it eliminates this very problem, so it's circular: I believe X because it is required of my belief in Y which is required of my belief in X...
Necessary to our becoming: This begs the question. "Do you want to become? No? Well you must!" The very issue is God's supposed imposition of the obey-or-die choice without any annihilation alternative. Our becoming is the very thing which is being forced and this is the act which seems inconsistent with love to me.
Tom: So, do you think all 'commands' or directions per se are tyrannical?
Zach: No. Commands that issue from the superior party of a bilateral covenant are perfectly acceptable. But at this most fundamental level the imposition of a obey-or-die choice is hardly the result of bilateral covenant. It is rather the imposition of a unilateral covenant. The difference is the difference between love and tyranny. I take 'tyranny' and 'unilateral covenant' to mean essentially the same thing.
Jeff, I'm having a hard time keeping up. I know what I write may be hard to follow (I try to keep it as clear as possible), but I'm struggling to understand you. So if I misrepresent you, that's why.
Jeff: The vast majority of people...
Zach: My bad. I started that. I think we can both agree that the majority is not the best source.
Jeff: Theologically, the issue seems to be fundamentally related to the idea that God is sentient and will not endure, indefinitely, just any state of affairs in His creation...
Zach: For me, the issue is something else entirely. I agree that God will set things right. I have no problem with him doing so (in a way that is consistent with love, which I think is possible and consistent with scripture if we make the giant leap of reading apocalyptic literature symbolically.) My issue was restated very well by Tom: "God is responsible for creating a situation in which consequences obtain at all by commanding them not to eat." We may freely choose between door number 1 and door number 2, but God forces us to choose one of them; we can't decline to play the game (unless you posit legitimate annihilation as a third choice).
Jeff: Well, the first thing we have to settle is whether God is capable of maliciousness.
Zach: But this begs the question. I am assuming that God's actions are always good and loving. And from there I am trying to develop a way of understanding the data of existence which is consistent with this assumption. However, I don't see how we can "settle" this question, prior to examination of the data.
Jeff: If my volitional act of righeousness is inconsistent with or inconducive to my own highest overall sentient satisfaction and that of my fellow sentient beings, then I have no idea how righteousness is related to benevolence/love, and consequentialism is dead. The fact that one can prefer non-existence to obedience doesn't imply that a volitional act of righteousness by another was conducive to that preference. Indeed, I would say that such a preference can only exist due to ignorance of reality, if it is contrary to God's will for that person. Otherwise, God is not interested in the highest overall sentient satisfaction of that person, and that would seem to imply, to me, that God is not benevolent, but selfish. For it would mean that God receives satisfaction from the actions of others which can only cost them dissatisfaction.
Zach: Here is where I'm not catching it all. It tends to happen when you use the word "volitional." But I'll do my best to respond.
First of all, how does an 'act of righteousness' enter into this? I'm just saying it's logically possible for a person to prefer annihilation to a finite amount a pain suffered for a finite amount of time followed by an infinite bliss of infinite duration. I am not such a person, but just barely. I can easily imagine someone saying, "Thanks, but no thanks." I have known people who would "rather be dead" or "wish they had never been born". Now maybe these people were lying. Maybe God creates all people with such a strong life impulse that they can't help themselves but say yes to this proposal, but if that's the case then I'm at the far end of the spectrum.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 1/21/2008 2:40:06 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 1/21/2008 4:01 AM (GMT -6) | | The main issue is that of natural evil.
So here's what I'm thinking. You know my idea about suicide and annihilationism. This addresses the problem by taking away the 'natural'. So this evil is only natural for those who opt to remain in God's program of creation. Another approach I've been considering is the removal of 'evil' from natural evil. Is there a way of seeing suffering as good or neutral?
My friend was playing guitar while we talked about this, so I put it this way. Let's say the guitar string is the person and suffering is the strumming, the vibration. There are properties of the string that determine what note it makes, but it only makes that note when strummed. So suffering is the means by which our essential properties (love, fear, anger, panic) are made manifest.
I don't think this metaphor is sufficient to 'answer' the problem of natural evil, but I think it suitably accompanies annihilationism in doing so. God is not unloving in subjecting creatures to 'undeserved' suffering, if suffering is merely light that reveals us or vibration that sounds us. And if we don't want to be revealed (experience suffering), then we don't have to.
All this assumes that forcing "what's best for us" on us would be an unloving act and is therefore off the table as an option for explaining suffering. I'm pretty firm on this point, but who knows.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/26/2008 10:10 PM (GMT -6) | | | Let's use my premises as a starting point for the discussion. What's wrong with these premises and conclusion, if anything?
1) The Father and Christ experience loving relationality sans creation (assuming there is such a SOFA as sans creation)
2) That experience does not entail suffering
3) We are to imitate THAT kind of love
4)THEREFORE, the loving relationality we are to experience NEED NOT entail suffering (indeed, it won't at some point in the future)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/27/2008 4:59 PM (GMT -6) | | | SOFA is short for State of Affairs.
In addition to your 4), I think I can see how a certain amount and kind of suffering could be necessary to resist sin. But pain in child-birth, etc. is not suffering of that kind, per se. Additionally, I suspect that Paul means, by that futility mentioned in Rom. 8 and 2 Cor. 5, that suffering (groaning/travailing) that is neither instructive (like those "physical" pains provided by our nervous system that help us learn what to do and refrain from doing, as we grow and develop) nor a result of resisting sin. Apart from those two classes, sufferings like the groaning and travailing mentioned by Paul seem contingent until some end is accomplished, like Rom. and II Cor. indicate. How much more, then, would the suffering of infants at the hand of bullies be contingent ONLY.
What da you think? If we can agree with this much, then the next question is how is it loving to forebear such "futile" suffering.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/27/2008 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...
Zach: Pre-fall, God offers Adam and Eve a choice: live under my rules or die. Read THIS for another take on the "fall."
BEGIN READING AT PAGE 77, AND CONTINUE...
GO PAST PAGE 82, AT LEAST. TO 93 FOR RICH READING.
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/27/2008 4:36:38 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/9/2008 9:55 AM (GMT -6) | | |
I'm thinking about the possibility that all bona-fide volition requires some discomfort, however minimal. That seems plausible to me. But it would imply that there was some discomfort in God choosing to create. Even that seems unproblematic to me, though, since a sympathetic God would probably anticipate His own sympathetic sufferings in the world He is about to create.
This divine sympathetic suffering could be occasioned by sufferings as trivial as Adam's children getting hurt in their normal development. In that case, those sufferings that are developmental teach us that suffering can be WORTH it for longer range good. Post-Fall-quality sufferings, like pain in child-birth, could be futile as compared to the sufferings of normal development.
It this is so, then suffering, per se, is not the problem. It is unnecessary (unnecessary, i.e., with respect to the attainment of God's ORIGINALLY intended and PREFERRED plan) suffering that is the problem. UR provides a possible ground for the divine withholding of good that is consistent with the fact that whatever post-Fall-quality suffering actually occurs is necessary in SOME SENSE. There are senses in which some suffering IS futile. But there may be another level of teleology where no suffering is ABSOLUTELY futile.
Is it conceivable that all bona-fide volition entails some kind of discomfort, even for God?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 2/9/2008 9:10:27 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 2/9/2008 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, I think that's where I'm at. I think something like this is necessary to theodicy. And it seems to match experience. So long as I hold to my understanding of imago dei, free will, and love I am bound to leave room for legitimate self-annihilation. And so long as I understand creatures to possess the ability necessary to act on such a choice (and because of my understanding of imago dei, free will, and love), I can't accept UR. But so long as God has not neglected us to the point that meaningless suffering is unavoidable for some, I can still see benevolence and even wisdom.
I know I'm treading very closely to pride. I just don't know if I could have faith when confronted with the impossibility of divine benevolence and unavoidable meaningless suffering.
Discomfort, even for God? I have no problem with that. The idea of creation as kenosis strikes me as incredibly beautiful and has the most elegant ring of truth. I think we could imagine divine self-centeredness where he sacrifices comfort for no one, but self-centeredness is itself deeply uncomfortable. But we can posit the same explanation for suffering in God's case as well I think. Suffering is unavoidable either way, but meaningless suffering is not.
I don't know; have I gone out of bounds? Is this an unacceptable degree of heresy?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/9/2008 1:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: So long as I hold to my understanding of imago dei, free will, and love I am bound to leave room for legitimate self-annihilation. And so long as I understand creatures to possess the ability necessary to act on such a choice (and because of my understanding of imago dei, free will, and love), I can't accept UR. But so long as God has not neglected us to the point that meaningless suffering is unavoidable for some, I can still see benevolence and even wisdom.
Jeff: Well, I have no problem with suicide as a possible choice, because we know it is. What I can't be sure of is whether a person can choose to annihilate. But it seems to me that it is no more parsimonious to suppose that God gives post-mortem second chances, and the like, than it is to posit UR. Both seem to be purely driven by theodicy concerns, as opposed to textual prophecies.
The reason why I like UR better is because of this thought-experiment: Say a baby is abused and suffers miserably and ultimately killed by some abusive adult. We would both say that the baby's sufferings were futile so far as the temporal life, here, is concerned. But you would say the baby gets a second chance. But isn't that second chance just a chance to use volition properly? In what way is that baby's prior sufferings "made up for" by the second chance at volition? They seem completely independent of one another, to me, if the second "life" is MERELY for a test of volition. Which means, that apart from UR, the baby's sufferings in the first life were allowed ONLY for God to attain His purpose, independent of any good the baby could attain from them.
So as I see it,
1) UR is no less parsimonious than the post-mortem 2nd chance view,
2) It avoids the relative futility of some suffering entailed in the post-mortem, 2nd chance view.
UR allows us to suppose that all suffering is necessary insomuch as it allows the requisite CONDITIONS for attaining God's temporal purposes. But NO suffering is absolutely futile from the eternal perspective, though they may very well be futile from a merely temporal perspective. But this would imply that the role of volition, prior to the attainment of the temporal ends of creation, differs from its role thereafter.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 2/9/2008 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | There are a lot of side issues with your thought experiment that distract me from the main point.
With babies I'm not sure about anything. If we are dealing with sentient creatures, then I'm ok saying that suffering can be made meaningful. With non-sentient creatures I'm not so sure. A second chance would not be for the purpose of "making up for" the first time. I don't see God as being culpable for the first time.
Also there is abuse. I can come to terms with suffering as the result of sin. If the baby is just naturally afflicted in some way, this is much more difficult for me to make sense of. When sin is involved I can see that it would be disingenuous for God to grant freedom only to take it away when we don't use it to his liking. And so, freedom used to harm others can be made sense of. But pure suffering is the tricky thing.
So, there also has to be the thought experiment in which Job, an innocent sentient man, is afflicted for no particular reason at all (before a later editor adds the bit about the angel meeting). UR explains this suffering by reference to a telos of God higher than love. If love were paramount, wouldn't God allow Job's torture to cease? I think viewing the suffering as the raw stuff of life which we can use differently answers to problem of evil.
My main problem with UR it's implied definition of the good. God is good. If UR is God's plan, then UR is good. Jesus teaches us to be holy and perfect like our heavenly Father. So, God's subjecting of us to suffering for a future goal should be imitated by us. So, why turn the other cheek? Actually, the question is even more scandalous. Why not randomly visit violence on the unsuspecting?
There are many places to attack this line of reasoning. Perhaps we should not "walk as he walked" or "be holy as the Father is holy" all the time. But in a roundabout way I think my rejection of UR does rest on scripture (and I haven't mentioned the most obvious scriptural problems: Narrow gate, uncrossable chasm, etc.). Jesus teaches us to imitate himself and the Father. Jesus also teaches a love that submits rather than rules over. Putting two and two together, God's love submits rather than rules. I don't see forced eternal decisions (UR) as consistent with such love.
That got too preachy. Whatever. I don't think UR and 2nd chances (as I understand them) are competing for the same ground. To my mind UR and the potential for sentient creatures to make all suffering meaningful are competing for the that ground. I don't see the need for both. I don't know. I'm not happy with this post. I'm not focused enough right now for all this fancy talkin.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/9/2008 7:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: If we are dealing with sentient creatures, then I'm ok saying that suffering can be made meaningful. With non-sentient creatures I'm not so sure.
Jeff: Non-sentient creatures can't suffer anyway, though. So they're irrelevant. Do you mean non-volitional?
Zach: A second chance would not be for the purpose of "making up for" the first time. I don't see God as being culpable for the first time.
Jeff: God is not culpable, true. That just means God is just. It doesn't mean God is LOVE, though, if loving means not withholding that good that benevolent beings freely provide. If all we're after is a just God, we don't even need post-mortem chances at all.
Zach: Also there is abuse. I can come to terms with suffering as the result of sin. If the baby is just naturally afflicted in some way, this is much more difficult for me to make sense of. When sin is involved I can see that it would be disingenuous for God to grant freedom only to take it away when we don't use it to his liking. And so, freedom used to harm others can be made sense of. But pure suffering is the tricky thing.
Jeff: There is withheld good either way though. So either there is a problem with withheld good, or there's not.
Zach: So, there also has to be the thought experiment in which Job, an innocent sentient man, is afflicted for no particular reason at all (before a later editor adds the bit about the angel meeting). UR explains this suffering by reference to a telos of God higher than love.
Jeff: UR has nothing to do with explaining Job-like suffering, to my mind. Job's later blessing was sufficient for that. James understood it just that way without any appeal to UR. UR, to me, is a parsimonious way to account for the problem of withheld good for those, like babies, who suffer unjustly when there is no other future "reward" for that suffering. Job had such a reward.
Zach: My main problem with UR it's implied definition of the good. God is good. If UR is God's plan, then UR is good.
Jeff: Not at all. Either withheld good is a problem, as you had called it, or it's not. If it's not a problem, then a just God (i.e., a non-culpable one) is all we're trying to explain anyway. And no post-mortem chances are needed.
Zach: Jesus teaches us to be holy and perfect like our heavenly Father. So, God's subjecting of us to suffering for a future goal should be imitated by us. So, why turn the other cheek? Actually, the question is even more scandalous. Why not randomly visit violence on the unsuspecting?
Jeff: I'm not saying that God subjects us to futile suffering, per His original plan. I'm saying God subjected Adam's kids to the possibility of getting hurt during their normal development. You would agree with that much wouldn't you? What I'm calling futile suffering is necessitated (to some extent, only, for much of it is volitional) by the Fall.
Zach: But in a roundabout way I think my rejection of UR does rest on scripture (and I haven't mentioned the most obvious scriptural problems: Narrow gate, uncrossable chasm, etc.).
Jeff: Those are arguments AGAINST UR, though. They are not arguments FOR post-mortem 2nd chances.
Zach: I don't see forced eternal decisions (UR) as consistent with such love.
Jeff: Me either. I just don't think anyone in Eden would have voluntarily chosen suicide. Indeed, very few commit suicide even under conditions of great suffering.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 2/10/2008 1:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, my last post was not so good. I'm having a hard time holding this in my head. It's weird, because these don't seem to be difficult ideas.
It is apparent that some otherwise meaningless suffering can be made meaningful by the sufferer. Changing "some" to "all"... You've got suffering independent of any will. Then you've got suffering as the intended or unintended result of sin. In the second case I can understand why God would allow it. In the first case, even this may be turned and used meaningfully.
So at issue is what happens with those who do not turn this meaningless suffering meaningful (redemptive?). Some options:
1.) They are guilty of an offense.
2.) Having made no covenant, they by definition cannot be guilty of offense.
and these are both joined with either...
A.) God grants the effectiveness of critical freedoms for choices to be made and their consequences to be felt, even eternally.
B.) God will suspend the effectiveness of critical freedoms so that only the consequences of God's desired choices are ultimately felt. (Not to say that their aren't plenty of undesired consequences in the meantime.)
I'm going with 2A for now. I don't see how (1) any activity outside of covenant can be judged morally or how (B) suspension of effective freedom is consistent in general with the testimony of scripture and in particular with Jesus. He says, "How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." Of course that's not specifically addressing eternal states, but you smell what I'm cooking.
Second chances comes logically after all this (I think). There are potentially cases where a sentient person is not volitional and so cannot choose either way on how to respond to suffering. Options are to annihilate them or place them in an eternal state (heaven, hell, or some in-between limbo) or let them decide. I suppose these options might be considered just, but loving or Christlike? Within my schema, (1) and (2) do not apply to this circumstance. And if (B) is the case then there is also no further explanation needed. It is only (A) that requires further explanation, because it is only (A) that endows the creature some measure of effective will with respect to decisions of lasting consequence. With the example of Jesus and the general testimony of scripture, I'm left thinking that God values the practice of letting us decide.
So my 2A stance leaves me with a decision to make about the non-volitional. I choose second chances, and I think any other choice is forced to explain why God suddenly shifts away from caring about effective creaturely free will. And so my position that choices of eternal import can be made by creatures is bound up with this "parsimonious", but I think Christ-consistent understanding that persons are allowed to choose their fate. Whereas UR has problems not only in this specific area, but also with the general thrust of so many saying of Jesus. I'll grant that UR is not ruled out on these grounds. But I do believe that the good for now is love rooted in freedom, and UR implies that this good will be replaced by another. And so I think it is inconsistent with Jesus' person, message, and work, and I don't much like the idea of God redefining "good" midstream. I imagine you don't either. But I think your position (B) requires no redefining in the first place, because the good is in some way distinct from "love rooted in freedom" to begin with.
So it boils down to, What is love or else the highest good? Is it bound to effective creaturely freedom? If not, I don't see the need for open theism. If the choice to accept or reject God is pre-determined, why not everything else? For you and I both I think, this is primarily a scriptural question.
I think I wrote all this primarily for my own benefit so that I could organize my mind.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 2/10/2008 12:54:53 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/10/2008 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | | I'm not quite woke up good enough to take it all in yet. But I would definitely say that if withheld good is not a problem for theodicy, then things are much simpler. I think the traditional statement of the problem evil is pretty much about withheld good. All else is explicable in terms of volition.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 2/21/2008 2:30 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 3/2/2008 10:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Yo amigos! I'm back and found ways to multi-task so I can see how things are going on here. (Plus I was super-curious when Alan started talking about the board!) The baby is 10 weeks old and things are going well. Few things are quite as beautiful as having a full night's sleep!
I was just skimming through parts of this thread and have a few thoughts (but FYI, I probably won't be back on here for at least another week ... unless curiousity gets the best of me and I decide to forego other household duties):
Zach: Loving: I take this to mean a relationship characterized by... well... the example and teachings of Christ: the willing submission to others, girding oneself with a towel and washing feet, and the like.
Heather: But (playing devil's advocate here)... why exactly is this loving? Why is following (the examples and teachings of) Christ loving? What does it mean "to love"?
----
Tom, two quick related questions:
Tom: But my questions are, "Did the Father and the Son live in loving relationality sans creation? And did that loving relationality entail suffering? I say "yes" and "no," respectively.
Heather: As to the second question & answer, what does it really mean to "suffer"? Is it just enduring "pain" such as that of an abusive person? Or... does it mean "surrendering"/ "self-sacrifice"? If the loving relationality entails THAT kind of suffering, then I'd disagree with your "no".
So... on to the other thing:
1) The Father and Christ experience loving relationality sans creation (assuming there is such a SOFA as sans creation)
2) That experience does not entail suffering
3) We are to imitate THAT kind of love
4)THEREFORE, the loving relationality we are to experience NEED NOT entail suffering (indeed, it won't at some point in the future)
I'd disagree with #2 (given what I just stated, ie suffering (here) = surrendering/self-sacrifice)
Therefore, the loving relationality.... NEEDS to entail suffering (self-sacrifice). (...I think...  )
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 3/3/2008 8:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Honey (VFG),
Here's my proposed definition of love for you: Yours truly! (Just kidding)
Here it is: To love something is to know, to desire, and actively to pursue its true good to the fullest extent consistent with its true good.
How's that for an abstract philosophical definition?
Love ya,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
| 37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:46 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 |
|
|