quote:

---

All compatibilism freedom says is that one’s choices are free to the extent that people are doing what they want. But this says nothing about HOW they come to want what they want. Doc wants to say that it’s mainly by self-solidification by the agents. But there is another way…God directing those wants. It CAN be this way. What you are describing is dealing with a type of micromanaging effect that is LIKE UNTO compatibilism (as I’ve said before)

---

quote:

---

So I guess my question is, to what extent does the OV really allow for compatibilistic freedom of the type you describe (where one's desires are determined by God)? Have we really established that the OV allows for this?

---

quote:

---

2) We refuse God’s grace, no matter whether it’s in our best interests or not. The analogy of you giving your son the $3 million is a good analogy, but there are people who would refuse such an offer. Think about it. I know that God’s will is in my best interests, and that when I sin I’m only hurting myself. BUT I STILL SIN!

God has already given us the $3 million agreement – Christ! – all we have to do now is buy. We “buy” by voluntarily walking within his will which is our greatest joy imaginable. That is the Word, the Gospel, the Truth, that we need to live life in light of the eternal reality that awaits us. Problem is, we don’t “buy” with his money. Too often, we would rather work ourselves and buy what we think we want rather than trust Him that we REALLY want His will. It’s stupid, it’s illogical…but it still happens. As Lewis says, “We are like children who would rather be making mudpies rather than going on a holiday at sea. We are far too easily pleased.” (Paraphrased).

---

I wanted to clear something up that might be a problem. Maybe this will seal up some pockets. My $3 million analogy is a takeoff of Doc’s. This is from Dr. Boyd’s “Satan and the Problem of Evil”, page 195:

“Allow me to illustrate by returning to the analogy of giving two hundred dollars to my sixteen-year-old daughter. If I genuinely give her this money, I noted, I empower her to spend it as she chooses. I give her economic say-so, as it were. If I subsequently intervene to dictate how she spends this money, I thereby reveal that I was disingenuous when I spoke and acted as though I gave her the money. In truth, I am spending my money through her. My gift to her, in other words, is only genuine to the extent that it is noncoercible and irrevocable.”

Ok. Use THIS as a basis. Doc is basically saying that the daughter having here OWN money to spend as SHE chooses is like libertarian freedom. To the extent that Doc were to dictate her spending, that would be like compatibilistic freedom.

Now notice REEEEALLY carefully, how I structure MY analogy:

quote:

---

Let’s say that I give my son $10,000 and I say “Hey, do with this what you want.” And he goes out and blows it all completely on frivolous stuff. He’s completely wasted his money with nothing to show for it and now he’s down and out. Now, he has certainly taken the ramification of his irresponsible actions. He’s dead broke now with nothing to show for it.

Now a week later, I take him aside. I say “Ok, son. You really screwed up that $10,000 I gave you. You have no money now. So this is what I’m going to do. I’m giving you $3 million dollars. But here’s the catch. You can ONLY buy things that I tell you to buy…only WHEN I tell you to buy them. If you don’t follow this rule, I take all the money again and you are broke again.”

He agrees. Now, it just so happens that I’m a benevolent forgiving father. I “order” him to buy himself some clothes that I know he likes. I tell him to buy himself a nice house of my choosing that I just HAPPEN to know that he loves. I command him to buy a car that I just happen to know that he’s been dying to have. And so on and so forth.

It’s clear in this example who REALLY has the money. I do. It’s my money. But in doing what I’m doing, my son is DEFINITELY getting the good end of the deal too. Notice that my son really DID feel the ramifications of his decisions. But also notice that I didn’t have to let my son STAY destitute for the rest of his life either.

---

Things to note:
1) Like Doc, I fully GAVE my son the 10,000 dollars to do with as he saw fit. This would be analogous to the libertarian freedom that we have in the probationary period.

2) My son frivolously spent all the money with nothing to show for it. He’s broke. This would be analogous to a person who solidified themselves AGAINST GOD and found themselves in “hell” after the end of the probationary period. “Death” in all its glory.

3) I give my son the $3 million under the stipulations of STRICT dictation of how he spends his money. This would be analogous to God, sometime after the probationary period, compatibilisitically compelling them to turn towards God.

4) I constantly order my son to do things that he wanted anyway. Things for his best interest that he was too immature to get himself. THIS would be analogous to God COMPATIBILISTICALLY (meaning unknown to them) compelling the formerly hellbound people to do things that ends up enhancing their “lives” anyway for they all find the deepest needs met in God.


I tried to use this analogy to show that it is indeed possible that ALL 6 of Doc’s theses could be essentially accomplished as goals, but yet a universalism exist. Just like my son DID have his OWN 10,000 dollars, so we too have our OWN libertarian freedom. But when that is up…and if we end up misusing it to the point of solidifying against God…there is NO REASON to say that God cannot compatibilistically work with us if we find ourselves in hell...and prevent us from ETERNAL wraith-like solipsism! And in doing so, God would just be removing the false selves from us that we had been so stupidly clinging to…and bringing some semblance of life to the hellish state of living nothingness!

I would also wonder why anyone would think that God letting possibly millions of beings languish in a wraith-like solipsistic state ETERNALLY is a better thing than God compatibilistically compelling these poor creatures to perceive THEMSELVES as loving God and in so doing, enjoy God.

I hope this helps to clarify a bit!




"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

Edited by - MephEternal on 07/01/2003 2:06:43 PM

quote:

---

Meph- I see what you're saying. But I fail to see how the substance is actually any different than an eventual universalism, ie , God saves everyone in the end, some right away, others after being "punished", but he saves everyone. So under your theory, you try to preserve genuine libertarianism by saying that eventually, after God sees how people abuse that, he goes in and saves them regardless- in other words, determines the outcome. Determinism (hard) is pretty much the same as soft determinism (compatibilism)- all the latter means is that people are free to the extent that they are not being forced to do anything- they are voluntarily going to the store, whatever. It's just a human perception, but it certainly doesn't deny determinism.
So what's the difference? God is allowing libertarianism currently, but in the end, under your theory, he determines the outcome or revokes the libertarianism. To me that is just a different way of saying that God has determined universalism as his plan from the get-go.

---

I wouldn’t say that I’m saying that universalism is true. I would say the following.

1) If Doc’s view of hell (middle ground between annihilationism and eternal, conscious suffering) is true, then we must admit that there are no METAPHYSICAL reasons the drive it’s existence.

2) It seems strange to me that, assuming God COULD use compatibilistic compulsion post-probationary period to create a universalism where all beings, whether self-solidified or otherwise, would ultimately perceive THEMSELVES of loving and enjoying God, that God would refrain from doing this, leaving an eternal dualism of blissful loving beings and wraithlike solipsistic zombies.

That’s all.




"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

quote:

---

Why couldn't he do that in the present then- why couldn't he use this "compatibilistic compulsion" to create a current universe where a good portion of people would perceive of themselves freely loving and enjoying God even if that is not really the case? Sure, then God wouldn't have those people REALLY loving him (according to the view that love has to be freely chosen)but if he created others who did freely choose of their own libertarian free will- just a small number, though, he then would have the love he craves, but he would also be left with much less evil and suffering.

I guess this may be the topic for another thread- but you do touch on it as well - how much love does God need? It seems under your view, he needs as much as possible in the current life, but in the afterlife, since those people are "done for" anyway, he doesn't need their freely chosen love.

---

I’ll put it this way. I don’t see any good (NON-AD HOC) reason to say that God doesn’t potentially exhibit compatibilistic compulsion with some people RIGHT NOW…nor do I see any reason to say that God doesn’t highly MICROMANAGE some events now. Doc, shall we get into the Peter’s denial/Judas’ betrayal discussion or what?

As far as guessing what’s a “good portion of people”, I suppose that would be left up to God. But what I’m mainly trying to hit on is all this really poses a issue for Doc’s view of hell.




"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

Edited by - MephEternal on 07/01/2003 4:35:58 PM

quote:

---

"Let the one who has an ear, hear what Brandon has to say!"

---

Nice illustration, dood.

I also wonder why, once you've cut the cancerous cells out of the body, you would want to reintroduce them back into the body. We don't know why cells experience abnormal growth (or why people choose to sin). Why introduce rebellion back into the kingdom once it's been quelled?

quote:

---

How about this analogy? I seen one of those prison movies like, "ShawShank Redemption." In the movie one of the characters was in prison for 40 odd years or so. He served his time. The gates were open and he was free to go. This guy had FREEDOM! I mean, FREEEEE-DOM! If there was any reason to get out of that hell-hole it was in knowing that he was free to do so and the possibilities for his life. You and I would jump through hoops of fire to be THAT free. His response was, "I'm soooo use to being here. What is out there for me?" Well, the man was not allowed to stay. And so HE HAD TO GO. You know what happened to him on the "outside?" He committed suicide. He didn't get kill by a significant other. It was self-inflicted. He couldn't hack it on the outside. He was like a fish outta water. His "home" was on the inside, back in the prison.

Could something like this somehow be possible on a metaphysical level?

---

quote:

---

Let’s remember, Laika. At the end of this thing, there will ONLY be compatibilistic freedom. This is what Doc ALWAYS has said. Only what is compatible with the kingdom of God will endure, so their will be no chance for rebellion. Both of us agree on this.

Where Doc and I differ is this:

Doc would say that all beings solidify themselves and, at the end of the probationary period, are stuck with where they have solidified themselves, whether for God or against. The God people WON’T rebel. The people in Hell CAN’T rebel, for they are “nothing”

I’m saying that there is no metaphysical reason to say that God cannot compatibilisitically compell anti-God people AFTER the probationary period such that they TOO are compatible with the Kingdom of God.

---

If they are so solidified they can't rebel, then they are so solidified they can't obey either. If God overrides their freedom and causes them to be obedient, then they aren't people anymore, why bother?

Doesn't Boyd say that love is meaningless without freedom to choose either way? Why even bother with people who don't have the freedom to choose either way anymore? Why bring robots into the kingdom?




Edited by - Laika on 07/02/2003 11:08:56 AM

quote:

---

If they are so solidified they can't rebel, then they are so solidified they can't obey either. If God overrides their freedom and causes them to be obedient, then they aren't people anymore, why bother?

Doesn't Boyd say that love is meaningless without freedom to choose either way? Why even bother with people who don't have the freedom to choose either way anymore? Why bring robots into the kingdom?

---

Remember, it’s arguable that, within the hellish state, it would even be warranted to call these wraith-like solipsistic beings “people”. Check out my quotes of Doc. It truly IS like a living death. A ZOMBIE state.

Also, remember that though their “love” wouldn’t be genuine in the sense that Doc wants, you still have to admit that the recreated beings would EXPERIENCE THEMSELVES as lovers of God…and participate in all the benefits of that. The ONLY person who would be aware of the faux love would be God. And I would ask you. Do you really want to say that God would actually PREFER a wraith-like solipsistic being suffering eternally OVER a compatibilistically compelled being who experiences themselves AND OTHERS as being lovers of God?? If you want to argue that, good luck.




"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

quote:

---

MephEternal, I believe the reason God won't force people into His kingdom is because force is the core of the argument Satan has with Him. Satan believes and contends that God's rule is based on FORCE. God is proving that His rule is based on "chosen love".


Satan says, "you rule by sheer, naked power". God says, "I woo people with love".

---

Ok, then. Then let’s be completely honest and say that God does NOT wish above ALL things that ALL people be saved (meaning unified with God). This is a SECONDARY desire…secondary to the divine preservation of free will and all of it’s ramifications even up to eternal conscious punishment. God basically says “I’m MAINLY going to work through persuasion. Maybe a little micromanagment and compatibilistic influence here and there, but ULTIMATELY and mainly by persuasion. And if all beings cannot be saved from that framework, then so be it. All beings will not be saved!”

Moreover, let’s also make the quite incredible claim that God would RATHER have some type of eternal dualism of lovers and zombies, rather than provide way for all people, by either wooing OR compatibilism, to experience themselves as God lovers at the consummation of all things.

Great interaction, by the way.




"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

Edited by - MephEternal on 07/02/2003 11:55:14 AM

quote:

---

We cannot deny Scripture, and Scripture seems to affirm some form of eternal conscious torment. And if Doc’s version of hell is correct, that would be an UNSPEAKABLY horrible state of existence at that! And NOW we have to say that God COULD have done away with it, but he CHOSE not to. I suppose one could try to argue that sin against an ETERNAL God mandates eternal consequences, so God’s justice requires it. But oh BOY would I (and other theistic AND atheistic thinkers) have a whole slew of arguments against that one. ESPECIALLY in the face of an all-good, all-loving being who SUPPOSEDLY wishes EVERYONE to be saved.

---

quote:

---

Laika - your comments made me think that this is one of the problems with the free will theory. If it is true that love must be chosen, and you have to have free will to choose, then there's always a chance of choosing not to follow God and thus sin enters the picture, right?
So after death, in heaven, what happens to free will? If it is abolished, then there must be some higher value than free will, since heaven is the ultimate perfect state of affairs. But if it is retained, there's the capacity for rebellion, and certainly, some people would choose to exercise their free will for rebellious purposes, right?

---

Perhaps free-will is retained AND we will never choose to rebel. We'll be like Christ, who, having free-will here on earth, never chose to rebel. Isn't that what our perfection is all about?



"A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim."
-- George Santayana

quote:

---

f you had to argue for the existence of an eternal hell (e.g., on Biblical grounds), what, in your opinion, would be the most plausible explanation as to why God might allow this? Is there a plausible explanation within an openness framework?

---

I believe that the most plausible explanation, given the open view, would be to say that God just will not ACCEPT loving behavior from creatures in ANY OTHER MANNER other than self-determined, self-solidified form. God just won’t because he doesn't want to. Moreover, God places the “dignity” of free will over and above God’s desire for all people to be saved. God’s wish for total salvation is a wish indeed that is conditioned by 1) God’s stipuation on loving behavior and 2) God’s upholding of free will and it’s ramifications at all costs.

All this is such that merely letting a being experience THEMSELVES as lovers and enjoyers of God is NOT ENOUGH. If they can’t get there on their own, they just don’t get it.

That’s the only plausible explanation I can think of, from the openness framework.




"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

Edited by - MephEternal on 07/02/2003 12:13:50 PM

quote:

---

Laika - your comments made me think that this is one of the problems with the free will theory. If it is true that love must be chosen, and you have to have free will to choose, then there's always a chance of choosing not to follow God and thus sin enters the picture, right?

---

Think about what being “like Christ” is, Laika. Doc would say that Jesus Christ was such that even though Jesus was “free” to sin, his character was such that he would NOT sin. Sound familiar? Compatibilistic freedom! THAT’S what our perfection is about. Getting to the point where our freedom of action is DETERMINED by an acquired CHARACTER that prevents us from sinning. Now, I’m saying there are TWO MANNERS this can occur. 1) self-solidification towards God 2) God doing it.

COOL!




"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.