quote:

---

To the extent that Jesus could have sinned here on earth, exists the potential for future rebellion to occur in heaven. Actually Jesus had a more difficult time of it, being in the earthly environment, enemy territory. In heaven we'll be in God's territory.

---

quote:

---

After an extensive study on Hell and many other chapters of theology related to it, I think I have come to the tentative conclusion that Hell is not Annihilationism or eternal undying conscious torment... it's both. Annihilationists have to skew over the passages that speak of the eternality of Hell; Traditionalists (eternal conscious punishment) have to skew over the TON of passages that refer to the wicked being utterly consummed. Why do we do this when we don't have to fudge over anything? Are they intrinsically imcompatible: complete destruction/death and eternal duration?

No.

I offer the Dream Hypothesis.

C.S. Lewis has some very interesting things to say about Hell (Problem of Pain)...
o When a table is consumed by fire, it is completely destroyed, but there is something that remains...ashes.
o So what happens when a soul is destroyed? Could there not be ashes? And since we are talking about another form of reality than what we now experience...could those ashes not have a form of consciousness? Hmm...

In essence, my hypothesis (and I call it that because my "jury" is still out as to whether its really conclusive) states that "Hell" could possibly be briefly described as the following...

o It is the punitive destination of the unrighteous
o God sends each occupant of hell to hell
o It is a dream-like state of post-mortem consciousness in which each person experiences a unique and solitary reality of unreality
o God can control this unreality as He deems appropriate
§ Some may endure an eternity of a miserable unreality
§ Some may endure an eternity of a neutral unreality
§ Some may endure an eternity of a pleasant unreality
§ The rest will enjoy an eternity of the ultimate reality
o It is the final destination of that person with no possibility of exit.

My hypothesis is based on multiple conclusions I found in my research on the topic, among those:

Hell and Sheol are almost the same thing...
o The only real difference between "Sheol" (i.e., "the first death" and "Hell" ("the second death") is...
o It is the punitive destination of the unrighteous only
o God sends each occupant of hell to hell
o It is the final destination of that person with no possibility of exit.

So what is Sheol??? Call it "soul sleep" if you wish...
o Sheol is the intermediate state between death and the resurrection to which both the righteous and the unrighteous "go" when they die.
o Sheol (i.e., the state of being dead) is described multiple times throughout OT and NT as being "sleep," although modern theologians dismisses it as a mere euphemism.

What is a dream???
o During repose, a person dreams.
o Dreams can be pleasant, neutral, and they can also be quite hideous at times, described as "nightmares" an "night terrors."
o The contents of a dream is determined (according to a modern theory) to hold both message from the unconcsious (as Frued suggests) as well as mere "brain farts" or regurgitations of the events of the day which your brain tries to make sense of (as another theory claims).
o If a person has unpleasant experiences in the state of wakefulness, they are often reflected in "nightmares" and "night terrors," and thus the state of being asleep is unpleasant.

The state of being dead is like a dream-consciousness...
o The experience of Sheol is determined by the events of your life - the righteous have a pleasant experience in Sheol and the unrighteous have an unpleasant experience in Sheol.
o Similar to Freud's dream theory, the experience of those in Sheol can also be affected by communication of God (be it positive or negative) to Sheol's occupants.

After Sheol/Intermediate State - Heaven and Hell...
o The occupants of Sheol are raised at the judgement. Some are sent back to the state of being dead by God, others enter into His eternal kingdom - the ultimate reality - of joy in His presence.
o Those who are sent to the Second Death also experience being destroyed by whatever means God destroys them.
o Even in our life, we think of some deaths as being "preferable" to other deaths, (i.e., being burned alive by fire is about the most unpleasant way to die I could imagine).
o There seem to be degrees of punishment in Hell just as there are degrees of reward in Heaven.
o The deaths of each person who doesn't receive the atoning sacrifice of Christ may each be different degrees of "preferability."
o The experience of dying would be echoed throughout your "dream" in eternity just as experiences of life "echo" in a dream and the experiences of life and of dying "echo" in Sheol.

Now, I have left out pretty much all of my textual "evidence" for my theory for the purpose of brevity. However, I would be happy to elaborate whereever anyone would like for me to.

---

quote:

---

We can only apprehend and reflect on issues like free will in relation to our reality - our brains, our 5 senses, our deliberation processes.

---

quote:

---

I suppose you could argue that hell is a lot more complicated than just not loving God because of the examples RD gave regarding non-Christians who want and attempt to love God according to the understanding they have. On the other hand, depending on how one believes God deals with such people, it's not really any more complicated than loving God.

---

quote:

---

I would agree with you that it is metaphysically possible for there to be a post-probationary period compatibilistic compulsion to occur. In the way that I think of compatiblistic determinism, I think of God "using" someone's solidified will/character for his purposes. In this case, it would be to love God. But even here you place some sort of time frame on a PROBATIONARY PERIOD. What happens in the end when that person still does not love God even as hand_carved says, when they don't do so NOW?

---

Ok. The point is that at the end of the probationary period (which HAS an end by definition) you would have some people who have self-solidified them selves against God, becoming the wraith-like solipsistic beings. It is assumed that they are indeed there because the made it a habit not to love and acknowledge God. So, I don’t understand what your point is here


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

Brandon:

quote:

---

I would also agree with you that love would not be genuine in the sense that Greg wants it. All that would matter is the great big cosmic pie in the sky lie, right? Isn't this what you are in effect saying? It doesn't matter that if people are living in reality or not? It seems to me that if we are going to have any compatibilistic determination going on, that it would not be merely for the effect (hypnosis) for ourselves believing we genuinely love God (He would know) we all know, they would not TRULY be loving. Besides, if God were to compatibilistically compel or intervene such that the end is what God wanted in the beginning (some theologians actually say better), then why would there be sin at all? Can't compatibilistic freedom work the other way?

---

This neglects Doc’s 6 theses and why they are there. The assumption is that 1) God wanted a Creation that was METAPHYSICALLY conducive to genuine love emerging and 2) that God get a bride for Godself. For these things to happen, it could NOT be the case that God compatibilistically compel ALL BEINGS to “love” God, for then #1 would not be possible. All I’ve been saying is that it is possible for God to accomplish all of God’s stated goals…AND the 6 theses be true…while still compatibilistically compelling hellbound people into turning to God.


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

Brandon:

quote:

---

Lastly, I don't see why my analogy has to just serve up a nice piece of "solidified character" pie. Can it not be a POSSIBLITY as well and therefore genuine? Also, I've seen a couple of movies (especially war movies) where a person sees an atrocity (men, women and children are annihilated) and he is told to keep quiet about it or else he will be executed. It will cost him his life. He will pay dearly. Yet, something within his psyche tells him that "truth" is more important than even his own life. Something tells him that "truth is better than a lie." In your scenario, the agents may not be able to tell a truth from a lie, but this doesn't seem to be how human agents are. We can tell this difference. And it would seem to me that after ALL probationary periods are done, people would rather know the truth than live a lie.

---

Hmmm. This grossly underestimates what compatibilistic compulsion is, in my view. I need an example. Ok, Brandon, say that you HATE brussel spouts. You detest them…and you’ve gone your whole life detesting them. Now, I hypotize you into TRULY BELIEVING that you love them. If my job of hypnosis is thorough enough, you would never even CONCEIVE how you didn’t love brussel sprouts before. It would never enter your mind about “living a lie” because the hypnosis doesn’t produce any type of FELT dissonance. Same thing here.

And again, if God TRULY IS God, then what would it matter if PEOPLE didn’t want to “live a lie” If they wanted to continue their own hellish existence. There are PLENTY of examples of times when we do interventions for addicts and stuff “for their own good”. You mean to tell me that God can’t do that? What’s more, we need to remember something. The TRUTH is that all creatures need God. It is WE who have believed the lie that we don’t.




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

quote:

---

But the question still remains: What about those who DO justly deserve to go to hell (whatever hell is)? That's Mephi's question. Assuming there is a hell and some people deserve it go there, and assuming their wills and characters are "fixed" in their rejection of truth and love (in whatever form they knew it and rejected it), why can't God just "presto" zap them and "make" them good? He's God. Why can't, or why wouldn't, God do this for all those who justly deserve hell?

---

VERY, VERY WELL SAID!!! As usual, Tom finds a good way to get to the HEART of the matter! My whole line of thought is based on one thing: It is NOT the case that God is metaphysically limited from “presto zapping” people in hell and making them good. Doc was banking a LOT on this, because it serves very well in light of theodicy. But it’s just not the case.


First off, let me type this. This is Doc’s definition of “probationary period/probational epoch” from SATPOE on page 427:

“probationary period/probational epoch. The period of time a free agent must go through in order to choose to love or not to love, for love cannot be coerced. I argue that if love was God’s aim in creation, there had to, by metaphysical necessity, be a probationary period, for love must be chosen. For humans, this present age is our probationary period. Our individual probationary periods come to an end as our free choices become crystallized in the form of an irreversible character. Ultimately, one is eternalized either as one who is open to God’s love or as one who is closed off to it. The probationary period, as the self-determining freedom that accompanies it, comes to an end. This is expressed in TWT6: the potential to influence is finite.”

Ok. REEEALY look at that, y’all. I’ve basically agreed with every statement in this definition…EXCEPT ONE.

“Ultimately, one is eternalized either as one who is open to God’s love or as one who is closed off to it.”

In my mind, there was absolutely no STRICTLY metaphysical reason to say that the self-solidified state had to endure eternally! Doc might say that TWT4 is the issue. It says that there is proportionality to the potential to influence others. Basically, it would mean this: if it is metaphysically possible for a being to eternally love God, it MUST be the case that it is metaphysically possible for a being to eternally NOT love God. But here’s the thing. To satisfy this all you need to say is:

1) Self-solidification in both directions to the point of irrevocability BY the self is possible.

2) The self is so constituted such that it is metaphysically POSSIBLE that eternal separation from God may occur.

You would NOT need to say that self-solidification MUST endure eternally. This is a different statement! But that’s how it seems Doc took it. Just like God allows people to eternally enjoy God, he MUST allow people to eternally be away from him. This is obviously not the case. This would not be an issue of METAPHYSICAL necessity, as much as being an issue of being ETHICALLY “FAIR.”

I’ll show you what I mean. Example. Let’s say you are you right now. Now, being a self-determined human being, you have the power to become a much more loving person or a much more hateful person. Let’s say that you spend the next 50 years being a hateful person, such that you have pretty much solidified yourself that way. You can no longer help being a hateful person. Now, I HYPNOTIZE you, via different means, until I actually have you do a complete 180 degree turn in your thought life. I’ve essentially brainwashed you into believing that you are a loving person. And it works. People can’t even BELIEVE it’s you. Now…think about it. Did I remove the essential CAPACITY that you had for self-solidification? Heck, no. You had done it already! The only thing that I did was STOP THE RESULT from enduring until your death. Nothing more, nothing less.

This same principle applies. God would not be negating TWT4 by just preventing the self-solidified hell person from being so ETERNALLY. So, then it would NOT be metaphysically impossible to do what I’m saying. I think Doc just has to grant me this one!

In fact, the ONLY WAY that I feel anyone could try to make a metaphysical case out of this would be to say the following:

God has determined two CREATIONAL/SELF LIMITATION factors that God will operate by: 1) Only self-solidified, self-determined God-ward intentions will be acceptable 2) the dignity of free will must be upheld in the fair distribution of results, meaning that full ramifications of free willed decisions will NOT be abridged in any way. Since God has made these CREATIONAL factors, they are more than just deliberations, but METAPHYSICAL limitations given that type of world that God wanted to create.

But you obviously see that this nothing more than a REALIST (as opposed to NOMINALIST) take on what I already said:

quote:

---

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.

---

[Digression: From the realist perspective, self-limitation/creational factors would be considered metaphysical limitations upon creation because of who God is. This is why I probably should have referred to the term "STRICTLY metaphysical" which would be much more like things that God could not LOGICALLY contradict irrespective of self-limitation. ]

The essential problem to theodicy is still there though. WHY would God create such a “creational factor” when God KNEW that such a thing would result in an eternal dualism where eternally suffering wraith-like solipsistic beings would exist…ESPECIALLY when God had the power to will otherwise???

Getting this, everyone?




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



Edited by - MephEternal on 07/03/2003 04:06:11 AM

quote:

---

If God has the power to do this type of compatibilistic determination, why doesn’t God use it such that people who would have self-solidified themselves against God would “love” God, after the end of all probationary periods??

---

I still don’t see how my scenario is not POSSIBLE as well. It seems as though your position pivots on the “hypnosis” deal. I want to do this over again. And for now, let’s just put your hypnosis deal on hold or on the back burner for the time being.

At the end of “the ages,” after all probationary periods are done, some STILL END UP in some sort of merge of annihilationism and eternal conscious punishment. This is your position. You believe this. Greg believes this. Let’s say that this is a “given fact.” So now your question is:

“Why doesn’t God use his power to bring self-solidified agents to love God AFTER all is said and done? What possible (moral) reason would there be for God to allow those persons to suffer eternally (at worst) when he could use his power to compatibilistically determine so they would not end up there. Not only this, but there is also the premise that God metaphysically limits himself so his creatures could love him freely. But this seems odd, because God is willing to allow these creatures to suffer forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever when he could compatibilistically determine self-solidified creatures to ultimately love him. This “compatiblism” is compatible with the open view. Isn't the price of self-limitation a little steep considering the consequences?"

But we see that THIS is NOT the case. Obviously, we end up with…“hell” your presupposition to your original question. Hence, I think you argue against your original question. Given that there is compatibilistic determination, then I wonder why there would have been sin in the first place? Given compatibilistic determination, why would there even be hell? Given compatibilistic determination, how would you even be able to ask the question?

In my scenario, sure it may explain the “self-solidification process” but it doesn’t merely do that. The self-solidification process explains why this person STILL REMAINS IN PRISON EVEN WHEN COMPELLED TO LEAVE (analogous to “NOT loving God after all probationary periods are completed). In my understanding even God can’t “compatibilistically determine” someone, when all is said and done because they are solidified in that state.

Sidebar: At scoo (school) today, I was talking to a lady about my work. We have a girl (she is 20-21 years old) working with us whose dad is a supervisor. This girl has already told me about some of the problems she has had with one of the other ladies. I said to her, “If your father knows what is good for you he won’t step in the middle of every problem you have with your co-workers because by NOT doing so, he will be teaching you some valuable lessons and you will gain INVALUABLE EXPERIENCE. Could this be possible on a metaphysical level for “some greater good?” That is, though God CAN compatibilistically “step in” he often doesn’t for some greater purpose? To me, this would be to love God genuinely (and possibly other reasons i.e. Bride of Christ, his will for Creation) and NOT in some” hypnotic” sort of fashion. End sidebar.

If all you are saying is that God can get hellbound people to love him by compatibilistically determining that they do so such that NONE would end up in hell, I suppose this is possible, but I don’t see that it would really happen without said agents NOT loving God genuinely.

Aaaaright…that’s my headache for the day!


Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16

quote:

---

So now your question is:

“Why doesn’t God use his power to bring self-solidified agents to love God AFTER all is said and done? What possible (moral) reason would there be for God to allow those persons to suffer eternally (at worst) when he could use his power to compatibilistically determine so they would not end up there. Not only this, but there is also the premise that God metaphysically limits himself so his creatures could love him freely. But this seems odd, because God is willing to allow these creatures to suffer forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever when he could compatibilistically determine self-solidified creatures to ultimately love him. This “compatiblism” is compatible with the open view. Isn't the price of self-limitation a little steep considering the consequences?"

---

NOPE! My question is:

ASSUMING that, after all probationary periods, there ARE self-solidified agents in hell, why doesn’t God use his power to compatibilistically see that none of these agents stays there ETERNALLY? This is possible WITHOUT negating any of the 6 theses OR God’s intentions of having a self-determined loving Bride.

We cannot place my “hypnosis” thing on that back burner because THIS is what we mean by compatibilistic compulsion. Persons who are under compatibilistic compulsion would NOT EXPERIENCE the compulsion. That’s very important.

Where are you disagreeing with me?




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

quote:

---

NOPE! My question is:

ASSUMING that, after all probationary periods, there ARE self-solidified agents in hell, why doesn’t God use his power to compatibilistically see that none of these agents stays there ETERNALLY? This is possible WITHOUT negating any of the 6 theses OR God’s intentions of having a self-determined loving Bride.

We cannot place my “hypnosis” thing on that back burner because THIS is what we mean by compatibilistic compulsion. Persons who are under compatibilistic compulsion would NOT EXPERIENCE the compulsion. That’s very important.

Where are you disagreeing with me?

---

quote:

---

So why would my prisoner analogy not work? Such agents are solidified to such an extent that even God can't turn them around. If that is the case, then even "compatiblistic compulsion" or "hynosis" won't work.

---

There is a reason that God wouldn’t be able to turn them around BEFORE the self-solidification occurred…but not AFTER. The reason before would be tied up in Doc’s 6 theses. But there is no metaphysical reason why compatibilistic compulsion can’t happen to people in hell. The whole “God CAN’T” is actually “God WON’T”… and that “won’t” only applies towards retaining the dignity of human free will. But as I argue, the entire process of beings putting themselves in hell is TESTIMONY to God honoring that dignity…and the state need not endure eternally.

It’s almost like you are saying that the human soul by its constitution is somehow INNATELY immune to any possible compatibilistic action by God, but that’s not true.

Hmmm..are we getting closer here?

quote:

---

Sidebar: At scoo (school) today, I was talking to a lady about my work. We have a girl (she is 20-21 years old) working with us whose dad is a supervisor. This girl has already told me about some of the problems she has had with one of the other ladies. I said to her, “If your father knows what is good for you he won’t step in the middle of every problem you have with your co-workers because by NOT doing so, he will be teaching you some valuable lessons and you will gain INVALUABLE EXPERIENCE. Could this be possible on a metaphysical level for “some greater good?” That is, though God CAN compatibilistically “step in” he often doesn’t for some greater purpose? To me, this would be to love God genuinely (and possibly other reasons i.e. Bride of Christ, his will for Creation) and NOT in some” hypnotic” sort of fashion. End sidebar.

---

quote:

---

Can we say that God can compatibilistically as well as unilaterally determine a certain event such that he does it for his "greater good purposes?" Also, can we say that God does NOT do things compatibilistically or unilaterally determine events for the same reasons? That is, for "greater good purposes?" Therefore, during probatinary periods, he does not compatilistically compel someone to love Him because of "greater good purposes."

---

Ok. First off, we need to get some distinction on those term. Unilateral action by God is action by God that in NO WAY deals with human beings for its original source of agency. Like God sending some thunderbolt to David’s homeboy for touching the ark. Or God’s opening up a fissure to swallow a family. God did that ON HIS OWN. On the other hand, compatibilistic action by God is action that DOES deal with human beings as its original source of agency. God would providing the intensified internal motivation that would “order” the human beings to act. See the difference?

Next, I would definitely agree that God does not compatibilistically compel to love him during the probationary period. This would go along with what Doc is saying. For the 6 theses, there is a page on Christus Victor Ministries webpage. From the start page, click on the “Spiritual Warfare” tab at the top. You will see “Six Theses” as a link there. Here is the page:

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=304

Cool.




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

quote:

---

Ok. First off, we need to get some distinction on those term. Unilateral action by God is action by God that in NO WAY deals with human beings for its original source of agency. Like God sending some thunderbolt to David’s homeboy for touching the ark. Or God’s opening up a fissure to swallow a family. God did that ON HIS OWN.

---