 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Various Possible Implications of the Open View | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Rachel H
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 1
| Posted 9/13/2002 11:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | It depends what the meaning is you're looking for. It seems to me that often in the West, the meaning we're looking for is something to keep us safe from evil and preferably make us look good victorious Christians. I wonder if God's intention is more to make us like Jesus (incidentally who was a refugee, homeless, had several attempts on his life, was abandoned by his friends, died as a criminal etc)
I don't like the fact, but I learn more from enduring pain than from protection or deliverance from it. Maybe it's just that God's values are different. If God had an idea that people would sin, and that evil would come into the world, he must have thought that it was worth it in the end? We learn to make right choices, to stick close to God, to anticipate the consequences of evil, to practise praying for healing and deliverance - and maybe when we get to heaven we'll find out how much we needed that? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
gguskid
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 32
| Posted 10/15/2002 2:26 PM (GMT -6) | | It’s a bit lengthy and verbose but Mephi2k shouldn't get all the ink.
Your Argument, Mephi2k:
====================================================
We CANNOT live as people who truly believe that we don't have ANY say-so over our futures. This would violate a fundamental belief about the world and ourselves. But this is NOT what theological determinism states. Theological determinism ALLOWS for people to have say-so over their futures AS EFFICIENT CAUSES that are necessary, but not sufficient for the job...and that's all that's necessary to cohere with our hardcore beliefs about life! So, a person CAN live according to the belief in theological determinism CONSISTENTLY.
====================================================
My Response:
In essence, as it relates to your argument, I understand you to be saying: You believe that you have a “say-so” RE: your future though at the same time you espouse “Theological Determinism” as cohering in harmony, one view with the other and that it is perfectly consistent to both think in those terms and live with such as a plausible reality.
Firstly, it certainly would seem that “we CANNOT live as people who truly believe that we don’t have any say-so over our futures” (perhaps this results from INTUITION?). But belief in and the way things actually are remain two separate issues. On the one hand we may believe that we have no “say-so” about how our future looks when in actuality we have every bit of “say-so.” On the other hand, we may not believe our futures are determined when in fact they actually are. So belief in something does not necessitate the actuality of it being the case. The converse also applies, that knowing something to be (having no say-so) stands true regardless of what you believe about such a thing (having say-so).
Secondly, what you should be saying is this: regardless of my understanding on “say-so,” I believe it to be the case that I have such “say-so” though I also believe that I have been acted upon by a caused determinant in such a manner as ONLY produces effect X which actually negates my held belief that I have “say-so,” but this I disregard and live as if I actually do have “say-so.” This my fiend does not stand to your reason.
Let me put it this way. If your “say-so” says anything about what the future looks like it only “says-so” because an antecedent cause affected effect as the case in the first place or second place or whatever place it stands in relation to the first and ultimate cause.
Thirdly then, can we say, “We can’t live that way?” Sure. It would seem quite schizophrenic to try and live as people having the notion that we have “say-so” RE: our futures but in actuality have no “say-so” whatsoever. One moment we’re thinking, “if I buy these doughnuts today, my future might not look as bright since my arteries might harden (**at least that’s what the Dr. says), possibly resulting in a heart attack at an early age—say 35, thereby leaving my wife and family to be without the husband and father I could and should be” (this is not a theological determinist speaking ;-) while the very next moment you’re thinking “the doughnuts are already in hand and I’m already in line at the grocery store counter believing this is a theological determinant affecting me as an efficient cause (secondary cause?) of the fact (actually unknown but for the sake of argument presumed of the future) that when I do have that heart attack I will have been driving my new wife to the airport when I careen off the road and hit an oncoming car with the President of the United States seated inside, killing every one but my wife who lives the rest of her life as a cloistered nun in North Dakota, committed to helping doughnut lovers across America; this is good. This is good for another reason, since the vice president has a harder line on the abortion issue and the good ol’ US of A will find itself in a much better, politically moral, posture (that was the theological determinist speaking) before God almighty, who, by the way, when He sees this taking place says, (as only a relational God seeking responsiveness by his creatures can; regarding **Dr.’s and doughnuts)…“I keep trying to tell that guy to lay off the doughnuts but he just doesn’t listen.” Not to mention the cause effect relationships that result from each succesive incident.
Granted, I don’t know the future but if I understand it to be certain based on causal determinants I can no sooner avoid being an efficient cause than I can decide not to buy the doughnuts at the store, therefore not being able to live my life any other way than to say “que sera, sera, what ever will be will be.” I may be able to talk about myself in terms of what I already know myself to be but never in terms of what I am to become (as if I had any “say-so”). For now I’ve enjoyed orange juice every morning for breakfast, and though I know what ever happens tomorrow necessarily occurs because of antecedent determinants acting in precisely the manner necessary to cause it to be the case, it might be prune juice that I find preferred tomorrow, never the less I leave it to tomorrow and reminisce today about what I now know myself to enjoy.
If I did in fact accept such a notion, I find it perfectly legitimate to talk about living in such a manner (letting the causes affect their effect in my life), however, if I take your proposition into account then I would be inclined to promptly admit myself to the nearest sanitarium…though, of course, if I did not find myself there I suppose It was otherwise determined by an efficient antecedent cause over which I was not involved in necessarily causing.
Fourthly, let me make this statement RE: determinism having theological import as I understand it from your perspective. God is the first cause, yes? Perfect as He is in His knowledge, it stands to reason that He therefore understands perfectly all cause effect relationships (ones that would occur should he initiate in one way or ones that would occur otherwise, depending on which way God actually does in fact decide to initiate). In His knowing such causal relationships—with regard to that which He creates and that which He initiates in and through His creation as to the fulfillment of His ultimate purpose and will—He necessarily sets in motion the perfect first cause that will necessarily bring effect to every other secondary cause, all the way on down the line, to the extent that His perfect purpose and will could not emerge averted from its original construction. Other wise the results in the case of having “say-so” in your future as an “efficient cause though not sufficient for the job…” in some way effects God. This can only be the case if the cause affecting you, results in your affecting the first cause, God, to necessarily initiate another cause. Non the less, it remains the same but in this last case God, who knows perfectly all causal relationships, knew necessarily that X-cause, effects Y-agent (you or I) which in turn, efficiently causes Him to act. What’s that?? It appears God, even in this scenario, allows Himself to be acted upon, and thereby relegates Himself (as He is sovereignly able and free to do), in fulfilling His purpose and will, to a secondary cause of His ultimate first cause.
All this to say 1) that I either don’t understand the difference between a determinist and a theological determinist or that they really can’t be separated from each other at all. 2) That you might have a perspective on "motive of charachter" as opposed to "material physicality" when it comes to determinism (A moral basis for freedom in a physically determined world). 3)That I myself do not hold to a deterministic position in any way, theological or otherwise (unless I might be caused to understand with more lucid clarity and intelligibility), there's your homework. 4) That I would like to take issue, at a later date, with your uninformed understanding of OT’s manner of prayer (see the Lord’s prayer as pre. req. for this discussion) and model it against one modeled by determinism.
Until That Time…
Edited by - gguskid on 10/25/2002 5:28:07 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/26/2002 10:38 PM (GMT -6) | | I think I have to side with guskid on this one Meph.
Of course one CAN deliberate between options AND believe everything is determined (theologically or otherwise). But one cannot deliberate in such a way that they ILLUSTRATE the belief that their deliberation is determined. The very act of deliberation ILLUSTRATES the conviction that "it is up to me to decide." The addition of "as efficient cause" to "it is up to me to decide" cannot be illustrated. We decide AS CAUSERS, not as a link between past causes and future effects. Yes there are past INFLUENCES, but the act of deliberating transcends these to the extent that it presupposes that I am the one to decide the course I shall take.
If determinism is true, then our conviction that it is "up to us" -- illustrated by our act of deliberation -- is illusory. And since explaining reality is the goal of every theory -- NOT "explaining it AWAY -- rendering a universal experience that touches the core of who we are as human beings illusory is hardly a mark in favor of determinism.
Nice having you on board Guskid. Thanks for your in put. Good reasoning.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
| 78 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:55 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 |
|
|