quote:

---

You have the power to so HYPNOTIZE the people in the tanks, by some means, to the point where they WILL “choose” to get out of the tanks. Yes, this would be interrupting their free will, but they would not perceive it as such. Four of them have deteriorated so bad, they are almost feral.

Note that:
1) You have what you wanted. You have a group of people who have FREELY chosen to interact with you and others.

---

quote:

---

Number one does not follow from the above; hypnotism or mind control by definition rules out free choice. You admit as much when you say this would be an interruption of their free will.

I think most OVers do believe that God can override human free will in order to accomplish his purposes in a given situation (such as the naming of Cyrus hundreds of years ante fact). However, these actions are not morally responsible on the part of the one whose will is overridden.

---

quote:

---

My view is that this is the situation we are currently in. God is currently “forcingEus to “chooseEto get out of our isolation chambers and interact with each other. How is He actually accomplishing this? Through what psychologists call our “driverE Our “driverEcreates psychological NEEDS (no different really than breathing Ea physical need) that “forceEus to interact with one another. An infant who is not physically touched and interacted with by another human will die Eeven though their physical needs are being taken care of.

---

Cool. Good to see you back.

quote:

---

I really like how C.S. Lewis dealt with this in the Great Divorce. It seems to me that his suggestion is that people eternally choose hell AND that it is a kind of annihilation as they grow smaller and smaller, more and more distant and more and more unreal. Sort of like a limit in mathematics. The asymptotic line never actually intersects - it is eternal (eternally separate) in that sense - and yet the limit (annihilation) IS the appropriate value to assign to it at infinity or "anything close to infinity".

---

Like Newton's method for finding a root? Never stopping and saying "that's good enough". Always approaching the root but never getting there. Interesting...

quote:

---

But, the house now has a for-sale sign in front of it which is a really good start...

---

There are houses you can buy that you can move. I think they're called "double wides".




Edited by - Laika on 07/11/2003 07:48:58 AM

quote:

---

Wouldn't you say that most non-believers are not truly free when they make such so-called choices? If I were born into a country whose government would persecute me for being a Christian, whose family would disown me, whose neighbors would ostracize me, an I really going to be very receptive to even EXPLORING Christianity?

---

Good questions.

God has promised "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart."

Check out the book "Eternity in Their Hearts" by Don Richardson, very interesting stories of people seeking God in gospel-less cultures.

Then support missionaries in any way you can, it's THAT important.

quote:

---

Okay, back to Meph. Basically you're saying "better a happy stepford wife than a miserable real one."
Basically you're saying, "if reality sucks, create a happy illusion." Basically you're saying, "better to have the illusion of making the right choice than the eternal consequence of making the wrong one."
And basically, I think you've got a point.

---

I’m trying to employ a very important and ubiquitously understood principle: For human beings, PERCEPTION IS OFTEN THE ONLY REALITY. If a person deeply perceives themselves to be truly happy, it could matter a whit what the “truth” of the matter is. Same way with their motivations. If a person DEEPLY perceives themselves as making the right decisions for their OWN reasons, it could matter a whit ultimately what the true source of motivation is.

And if it came between PRESERVING free will on all levels and allowing eternal hellish existence and acting compatibilistically to remove freedom on SOME (not all) levels to not only prevent this, but allow for a universalist context, surely the latter is better.

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


Doc:

quote:

---

If TWT4 is wrong. If the possibility of eternal conscious God-toward life does NOT imply the eternal conscious God-against life, then your scenario is metaphysically (but I think we both agree, not scripturally) possible.

If TWT 4 is wrong, at least as I apply it eternally, I think annihilationism is a far more compelling scenario. In mercy and in justice put the self-chosen deprivation sufferers out of their misery.

---

First, we do agree that SCRIPTURALLY this scenario is not possible…which inherently brings up the theodicy problem. If we can agree that it was metaphysically possible, then the question about why God didn’t do this looms quite largely.

Second, I’m not willing to say TWT4 is wrong. I do think that your application of it implying the necessary actual (rather than merely possible) experience of eternal hellish consequence could be wrong. Beside that, I don’t find find annihilation to be more compelling than universalism in either mercy or justice. Justice was amply satisified in their going to hell…and NOT staying there eternally for finite sins. Mercy would be satisified in that instead of letting death truly have the last say, God would mercifully grant human beings in hell the motivation that they THEMSELVES couldn’t muster to truly actualize their fullest potential in God. Put these two things together with the idea of a God who truly wants ALL beings to be saved, and it’s almost a no brainer.

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


Doc:

quote:

---

There's something macabre about overhauling peoples free will and giving them the illusion of choosing life, when in fact they chose death.

Suppose the wife of a scientist comes to hate him, though he is loving. She goes after other lovers and makes a billion bad choices and becomes is so miserable for so long she commits suicide. Suppose the scientist discovers a way to bring "her" back to life, but with no will, no brain of her own, etc.... But he CAN resusitate and reprogram old neurons so you have a conscious being who THINKS she's a human being with a will, indeed, (since the scientist programed her) thinks she loves him and is happy, etc.....

Should he resusitate her?


Meph, the question ultimately is, The question is, Is God willing to become a perfected form of Frankenstein????

---

Oh, my, the rhetorical statements. Hmmm. But I’ll go along. We need to tweak this so it more accurately reflects my position. Like so…

Suppose the wife of a scientist comes to hate him, though he is loving. She goes after other lovers and makes a billion bad choices and becomes is so miserable for so long she commits suicide. Suppose the scientist discovers a way to bring "her" back to life. She DOES have a will, but her mind has been reprogrammed with subliminal suggestions such that she will not be going after all the bad choices that she used to. She makes choices in line with the new motivational programming that she has. She will PERCEIVE HERSELF as truly being happy, loving the scientist, being finally able to RECEIVE love from the scientist, and actualizing her potential more than she ever had before. Her perception WILL be her reality. She will truly be happier than she EVER was before! And the only person who will know the “truth” about her former life will be the scientist. Should he resusitate her?

Hell, yes, he should resusitate her. Do you really think it would be better to let misery and death have the last say in this woman’s life like that?? He would doing her a great favor! Can you imagine how much greater this favor would be if she was to stay in that miserable state for ETERNITY??

I would submit that if God 1) truly did put preeminence on ALL people being saved and 2) wanted all people to end up EXPERIENCING THEMSELVES and others as God-lovers for eternity that God would not have a problem with this.

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

Doc:

quote:

---

This argument/ analogy perhaps works for preferring annihilationism over Meph's macabre universalism. But it may not work to preffering eternal conscious suffering over it. If the alternatives were between a) the wife in conscious torment or b) the wife in illusory conscious happiness, 'b" would be preferrable.

---

Glad you acknowledge this, Doc. But NOW the problem really shows up. Let’s say that I take annihilationism and forget about universalism. Fine. Now that we realize that it was metaphysically possible for God to be merciful by letting em die, as you called it…why did God do that? Why would God let ANY sentient being (EVEN SATAN) exist in eternal conscious suffering when God honestly didn’t have to? Uh, oh…spaghettios.
***************************************

Doc:

quote:

---

Does it change anything if we emphasize that people LOVE darkness rather than life? If the people in the deprivation tank LOVE it... now would we hypnotize them?

---

This is just like asking the question “If crack addicts really think that they love doing crack or heroin, should we do any type of interventions against their will at any time?” Just because people sometimes ove things that are FUNDAMENTALLY dysfunctional doesn’t mean that it’s morally right to let them stew in their mess.

I would argue that experiencing God love and experiencing OURSELVES as loving God is the most healthy, life-affirming thing a sentient being could do. So why would God allow us to do this eternally if he could do otherwise??

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

Doc:

quote:

---

Doc: Good point. But in Meph's stepford universalism (, people have had their wills taken from them. So there's presumably no fear of them going back.

---

They have their compatibilistic wills moved in the OPPOSITE direction, yes. So, there would be no going back.

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

Doc:

quote:

---

So the question, Meph, is this: Should God brainwash the people in Lewis' self-chosen hell to get to heaven, or not? Should he force the increasingly unreal people to be real?

---

Hey, YOU answer the question, via this analogy. Should YOU brainwash the 40 people in the tanks to WANT to come out? What’s YOUR decision? MuhahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


Cool stuff!




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

Edited by - MephEternal on 07/11/2003 10:11:19 AM

quote:

---

My view is that this is the situation we are currently in. God is currently “forcing” us to “choose” to get out of our isolation chambers and interact with each other. How is He actually accomplishing this? Through what psychologists call our “driver”. Our “driver” creates psychological NEEDS (no different really than breathing – a physical need) that “force” us to interact with one another. An infant who is not physically touched and interacted with by another human will die – even though their physical needs are being taken care of.

Our psychological driver causes us pain in order to get us to interact with others. The most fundamental rule of psychology is that if we don’t get our psychological needs met positively we WILL get them met negatively. I submit that this IS God’s mechanism for getting us out of the isolation tank and getting us to start interacting with others.

But what happens when by our own choice we decide that we hate this existence and thus hate all others and do not want to be interacting with others and just want to go back to our isolation chamber? Seems to me like God is actually forcing the situation RIGHT NOW by causing us the pain and suffering of making us choose some sort of interaction with others in order to basically stay alive.

---

Ok. So wouldn’t you say that it’s possible for people to act according to an essentially FALSE SELF that 1)anesthesizes one to the pain of self-isolation and 2) deceives that one into believing that this actually makes one “happy”? Yep. Pain has HEALTHY qualities. It tells us when something is wrong and needs to be fixed. God causing us pain in this context would merely be telling us that something is wrong. However, pain does have NEGATIVE aspects. Pain can be psychologically destabilizing…IF LEFT TO GO ON TOO LONG. This is why we have things like anesthesia, right? Actually, this is why people black out if the pain threshhold is pressed too high, right? Now consider ETERNAL conscious torment. Sheesh.




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

quote:

---

Leila:

Wouldn't you say that most non-believers are not truly free when they make such so-called choices? If I were born into a country whose government would persecute me for being a Christian, whose family would disown me, whose neighbors would ostracize me, an I really going to be very receptive to even EXPLORING Christianity?

Don't you think that many of the people who reject Christianity because they are in effect brainwashed by their culture may actually embrace it if they could really hear and understand the gospel free from societal constraints?

So what if we modify Meph's example: Instead of God going against the wills of those people who have not chosen Him, we simply provide them with another chance to accept His love in an environment free from their cultural/familial/psychological baggage? In effect, this would level the playing field.

Don't know how Biblical this view on hell is, but it still respects people's free choices, as well as accounts for those who haven't heard the gospel or are incapable of grasping it.

---

quote:

---

Isn't what you are suggesting about compatibilistically changing their will similar to lobotomizing or brainwashing an addict? Ever see "A Clockwork Orange"?

---

Why, YES, sir, I have seen “A Clockwork Orange”. It’s one of my favorite films! Whohoo! But there’s a mistake here. A Clockwork Orange deals with behavior modification techniques using conditioning that are not the same as the type of “hypnotism” that compatibilism means. If you recall, they basically conditioned Malcolm McDowell’s character (Alex) to have negative physiological effects whenever he had a harbored an evil intent, like about raping, robbing, killing, etc. Notice that the INNER MOTIVATION of the thoughts had not changed. He still wanted to rape women and do stuff. His compulsion was EXTREMELY felt and eventually used against him. (Remember the “Ludvig Van” scene where his aversion to his once-favorite music was a side-effect of the conditioning??) This would be like unto the conditioning that any animal would experience via electric shock or something.

Compatibilistic “hypnosis” would be entirely different. If that would have occurred, Alex would not even WANTED to rape or kill anyone. His DESIRES would have been changed. Moreover, Alex would have genuinely PERCEIVED HIMSELF as being a good citizen, not as some bad citizen who, not likng pain, better do good. See the difference?

Good movie, though.




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

Edited by - MephEternal on 07/11/2003 8:54:09 PM

quote:

---

Okay, why not work this the other way then? That is,
* since we agree that scripturally your scenario is not possible, and
* since we agree that God would avoid having people in hell if he could,
* let us conclude that he simply COULD NOT avoid it.

And how could he not?
If it was metaphysically impossible.
And how could it be metaphysically impossible?
My interpretation of TWT4.

---

So, then you validate your view of TWT4, by way of abduction? That won’t do. I’ve already basically spelled out what you have to do in order for this to work. I’ll repost here…

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

Ach, NEIN!

You said:

quote:

---

Meph: All TWT4 has to work with, Doc, is LOGICAL POSSIBILITY.

Doc: I think you’ve nailed the central point of our disagreement. Dude, logical possibility isn’t enough. Heck, anything that’s not logically contradictory is logically possible. TWT4 is about POTENTIALITY, which is much stronger than logical possibilities. It’s logically possible for you to wake up a female tomorrow, but I don’t believe you have the POTENTIAL for this.

---

Hey, I’ve got it. How about, when you get back, you DIRECTLY SHOW ME how TWT4 NECESSARILY deals with potential actualization rather than just logical possibility. The only (and I mean ONLY) thing that I’ve been able to figure out is as follows:

From a REALIST standpoint, if God made a creational factors such that all beings HAD to experience the results of their choices for the duration of their existences, then TWT4 must deal strictly with potential actualization. This chosen creational factor would have METAPHYSICAL implications upon any Creation that God made.


I said this on the other thread. And I ALSO got this from abduction. Now, again, if you TAKE AWAY God’s self-chosen creational factor/self-limitation, there is no more metaphysical reason for your interpretation of TWT4. And I’m arguing that one CAN take this reason away, and still God could accomplish everything that you say God wishes to. The only thing that you can do is to argue that God, given God’s essential existence as love, would NECESSARILY have to make this creational factor. Reframed, you have to argue that love NECESSARILY lets all free-willed ramifications endure for as long as the beings that make the decisions endure. It is THIS idea that I tried to contradict with my “sensory deprivation tanks” analogy. I find it highly problematic to say that it would be NECESSARILY LOVING to allow those 40 people to psychological disintegrate unto a heinous death…MERELY because they ignorantly defiantly chose to…especially when I had the means to adequately stop it. Check out the analogy!

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2235

Ok, I think I’ve REALLY gotten to the heart of our issue. So, when you get back, this is what I’m looking for:

Show that love NECESSARILY lets all free-willed ramifications endure as long as the beings making the decisions endure.

If the above is demonstrated, then you are very correct about TWT4. And I will gladly concede!

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

And I still mean this, Doc. I WILL concede if you do this. Mere abduction here won’t necessarily work…because the IMPLICATIONS of your abduction seem morally problematic. Why? Because to say that love NECESSARILY lets all free willed ramifications endure as long as the deciding being does ends up negating any real reason for INTERVENTIONS of any type when we see people making self-destructive decisions. THIS is why I want you to answer the analogy forthrightly. Would you, Dr. Gregory A. Boyd, let the 40 people in the sensory deprivation tanks deteriorate into madness and death because it was NECESSARY to do so because of love…or would you hypnotize them so that they would CHOOSE to come out?

I am basically arguing that our "moral wiring" (as you call it) and experience of such goes AGAINST the idea of love never intervening in others' freely-chosen self-destructive cycles! And, just like YOU say for open view theism, something that counters our experiences this deeply is probably NOT TRUE!

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

Doc:

quote:

---

It seems to me that if you control another person, Meph, you’ve undermined their personhood. The essence of personhood is self-determination. So it seems to me, Meph, that for all intends and person the God of your hypothetical universalism DOES kill PEOPLE in hell. He simply goes on to take a recreated stepford shell of their's to heaven. THEY aren’t really saved. THEY died. A new stepford version of "them" is in heaven. The fact that they don't know any of this just reemphasizes how dead they are as PERSONS.

---

Ah, ah, aah! Remember. According to your view, they were already dead, right? At least for all intents and purposes. So why leave a bunch of eternal corpses around???


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

Doc:

quote:

---

Everyone except universalists have understood everything Christ accomplished in his life, death and resurrection to be true IN PRINCIPLE but needing to be received IN PRACTICE. Jesus died for all the sins of the world – but it only applies to those who don’t reject it. So too, Jesus conquered death for all… but it only applies to those who don’t reject it.

And I, for one, would disagree that univeralism wins hands down over annihilationism on scriptural grounds. Almost all the metaphors for God’s judgment of the wicked imply annihilation (e.g. death, destruction, burned up, corruption, perishing…).

---

1) An eternal dualism of heaven and hellbound (dead) beings would be a partial defeat of Christ’s accomplishments. Even annihilationists acknowledge that. Isn’t that one of the arguments FOR annihilationism?

2) I said universalism would win on MORAL, THEOLOGICAL, and Scriptural grounds (relativistically applied). With a combination of all these things, it would stand on firmer ground. Cmon, you know it! And let’s face it, when it comes to relativizing Scripture, it doesn’t matter whether its an inch (annihilationism with Rev 20:20 and Jesus parallel text) or a yard, it’s STILL relativizing Scripture. So, annihiliationists should have nothing to say to universalists about that.

Cool stuff…




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

Edited by - MephEternal on 07/12/2003 09:39:18 AM

Edited by - MephEternal on 07/12/2003 09:44:00 AM

quote:

---

Assuming only God knows about the “stepford” people, wouldn’t this require an element of deception in heaven? If so, would this be incompatible with God wanting people to worship him as the God of truth and light? I.e., how can God claim to be Truth and Light when he is being deceptive?

---

I find this idea quite interesting. No one seems to think of necessary epistemic distance as “deception”. Hmm. Well, at any rate, let’s go the other route. Let’s say that God lets EVERYONE know exactly who got there by self-solidification and who got there by God-solidification. This would mean that God, following the compatibilistic action, would tell the people WHAT he did.

Ooookay. I don’t see the issue. This information would be COMPLETELY SUPERFLUOUS. Why? Because it wouldn’t matter to anyone. Everyone is compatibilistically God-centered one way or another. Everyone perceives themselves as lovers of God. I don’t think they’ll be any “elder brothers” (ala the Prodigal Son story) to complain about the distinction. The bottom line is that, IF God not telling the people looks like “deceit” to you, cool. But this is NOT essential to the rest of the argument.


Now, JET. How about you answer my analogy, bud?




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

quote:

---

Now, JET. How about you answer my analogy, bud?

---