 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > A Question For Greg Boyd. (About God being fundamentally opposed to evil.) | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/26/2005 9:11 PM (GMT -6) |   | Aiiiight. Time for another HIP HOP BREAK!
Drop the beat, fuul...
Yo, there's too much drama goin' round about the kid, son. Too many people trippin on me. Word up, pimpin. Lotta hatin' goin' round on a player for being a "liberal" and #&*%. Yeeaaaaah. So, I think it's time I holla at these so called "saints"...let em' know sum'n. Speak dat game, dawg!
You might see me in the church, but playa....
You don't know me.
If you think that you can judge me, remember...
You don't know me.
Save all the scriptures and ya prayers, baby...
You don't know me.
Quit tellin' people I'm a heretic, cause...
You don't know me.
Don't be hatin', stop debatin', shorty...
You don't know me.
I ain't trippin, yo, but truth is really...
You don't know me.
Yeah, you know they call me MephE, but...
You don't know me.
I can see you wanna box me, but..
You don't know me.
Cast to the beat of T.I.'s hot song "You Don't Know Me"
http://www.mtv.com/bands/az/t_i_/artist.jhtmlPost Edited (MephEternal) : 4/27/2005 12:31:00 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/27/2005 12:17 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Aiiiight. Time for another HIP HOP BREAK! Drop the beat, fuul... Yo, there's too much drama goin' round about the kid, son. Too many people trippin on me. Word up, pimpin. Lotta hatin' goin' round on a player for being a "liberal" and #&*%. Yeeaaaaah. So, I think it's time I holla at these so called "saints"...let em' know sum'n. Speak dat game, dawg!You might see me in the church, but playa....
You don't know me.
If you think that you can judge me, remember...
You don't know me.
Save all the scriptures and ya prayers, baby...
You don't know me.
Quit tellin' people I'm a heretic, cause...
You don't know me.
Don't be hatin', stop debatin', shorty...
You don't know me.
I ain't trippin, yo, but truth is really...
You don't know me.
Yeah, you know they call me MephE, but...
You don't know me.
I can see you wanna box me, but..
You don't know me.Cast to the beat of T.I.'s hot song "You Don't Know Me" http://www.mtv.com/bands/az/t_i_/artist.jhtml
And just when I was about to do a serious post! All the darned wind...just knocked out of my theological wind pipes!
Next post, please...
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/27/2005 1:06 AM (GMT -6) | |
First, I take a bit of a different stance on the Trinity: they are one: they are not three distinct personages with three distinct wills. Rather, they are three distinct personages in relationship to each other within one will. Hence, it can never be that one can will differently than the others, and, hence, one can never will to break off the relationship (I really think trinitiarin theology, particularly in its tight-fittings of received orthodoxy through the ages has created a far more loose concept of "three in one" in its attempts to create "one in three.")
Moving on...
What if in order for finite sentient beings to love they must be given the option (libertarian freedom) to choose to love, BECAUSE for The Infinite Sentient One, who can never choose to not love, love can have no meaning between Him and The Finites if love is not chosen, something The Infinite Being can never know: the freedom to choose to love, but never has to know the freedom to love in order to love meaningfully?
It is plausible that The Infinite Loving Sentient being, some things of which He cannot do—one being the inability to choose not to love—must have love returned to Him voluntarily from the Finites if love is to mean anything TO HIM. It simply will not make the way possible for the desired effect toward The Infinite One for Him to create finite loving holy robots and expect their unchosen love to have the same meaning and value for relationship purposes toward Him as His love is already toward them.
If by necessity and unchangeableness The Infinite One cannot choose to not love, this, then, does not argue in support of the position that The Finites can be created to love The Infinite One with the same meaningfullness and purposefull love that The Infinite One has for them. Quite the contrary: to love as The Infinite One already loves, The Finites would also need to have a self-derived, eternally existing love or the playing field is not equal; the exchange of love between the two is not equally meaningful; by virtue of being finite, they are Johnny-come-latelys. They can not be expected to express eternal love equal in quality with The Infinite One that they do not possess self-derived. What they have been given is uncreated, eternal love. bit it is still only able to be expressed toward The Infinite One in the same quality it was given, and no better: Finites expressing love in the finite. That doesn't make for meaningful relationship. However, add the element of freedom to choose to love or not love, The Finites can now elevate the quality of the expression (like amplifying music from its original source) of the love they have, thus matching meaningfulness with The Infinite One's love, who eternally qives the same quality of expression of love in return. They are, then, Finites expressing love in the eternal.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/27/2005 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmmm...
Starkman:
It is plausible that The Infinite Loving Sentient being, some things of which He cannot do—one being the inability to choose not to love—must have love returned to Him voluntarily from the Finites if love is to mean anything TO HIM. It simply will not make the way possible for the desired effect toward The Infinite One for Him to create finite loving holy robots and expect their unchosen love to have the same meaning and value for relationship purposes toward Him as His love is already toward them.
If by necessity and unchangeableness The Infinite One cannot choose to not love, this, then, does not argue in support of the position that The Finites can be created to love The Infinite One with the same meaningfullness and purposefull love that The Infinite One has for them. Quite the contrary: to love as The Infinite One already loves, The Finites would also need to have a self-derived, eternally existing love or the playing field is not equal; the exchange of love between the two is not equally meaningful; by virtue of being finite, they are Johnny-come-latelys. They can not be expected to express eternal love equal in quality with The Infinite One that they do not possess self-derived. What they have been given is uncreated, eternal love. bit it is still only able to be expressed toward The Infinite One in the same quality it was given, and no better: Finites expressing love in the finite. That doesn't make for meaningful relationship. However, add the element of freedom to choose to love or not love, The Finites can now elevate the quality of the expression (like amplifying music from its original source) of the love they have, thus matching meaningfulness with The Infinite One's love, who eternally qives the same quality of expression of love in return. They are, then, Finites expressing love in the eternal.
Hmmm...
First of all, that whole "must" thing is a wash. We can say that it's plausible that God WANTED morally autonomous beings and created them...but there's NO REASON to say that God couldn't have it any other way.
Second, God's love is not "self-derived". God's love is NATURAL to Godself. God's love to God is like human DNA is to human beings. He couldn't help having it. God's love is an EXPRESSION of his nature...just like our human characteristics are an expression of our human DNA. Only current sentient creations truly have meaningfully "self-derived" love...because only THEY have the ability to self-dispose themselves towards love and genuinely originate their loving character. So, let's get off that. If God were to have created sentient creations such that their characters were already INNATELY loving, it would be at that point that they were loving just like God. Surely, you see this right?
So, there's the absurdity. God can accept his own INNATE loving nature as genuine...but then we are to speculate that God needed "self-derived" love from others? Sorry, pahtna. I ain't buyin' that.
You actually seem to make the love of sentient beings BETTER than God's love by giving priority to "self-derived" love. Are you sure you wanna do that?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/27/2005 9:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Meph,
With regard to your excellent question RE: God's benevolence grounded in his omniscience, again it seems to me that the crucial distinction here is the nature of moral action, the power of contrary choice. Intelligence does not in and of itself NECESSITATE wise choices in using that intelligence. Yes, as I said earlier, God sees perfectly all possible reasons for moral actions (whether good or evil), and as a result chooses benevolence over malevolence, but, as Kel Good notes in his article on "The Assurance of God's Faithfulness," accurate knowledge or the lack thereof does not in and of itself explain ALL sin (moral-category action), not even most kinds of sin (moral-category actions).
With regard to my explanation about the Trinity's perfect knowledge, understanding, and love one for another, I honestly can't see how there could be ANY probability whatsoever involved in my explanation, for there never could be any lessening of the love between them.
As far as the 'dogma' thing goes, it seems to me that to a huge degree most everybody is dogmatic (assumes their views are the correct ones and that everyone else should of course agree with them).
For my part, I'm not claiming I know all the answers on this admittedly difficult issue; I have only been attempting, however imperfectly, to present a view of moral action that I have found to be meaningful and to answer a lot of questions, though obviously not all questions to everyone's complete satisfaction. I 'umbly join everyone else in not being able to fully explain God and his ways.
Now I'll go strum my guitar.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/27/2005 10:20:04 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/27/2005 10:30 AM (GMT -6) | | John:
For my part, I'm not claiming I know all the answers on this admittedly difficult issue; I have only been attempting, however imperfectly, to present a view of moral action that I have found to be meaningful and to answer a lot of questions, though obviously not all.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective.
*****************************
John:
With regard to your excellent question RE: God's benevolence grounded in his omniscience, again it seems to me that the crucial distinction here is the nature of moral action, the power of contrary choice. Intelligence does not in and of itself NECESSITATE wise choices in using that intelligence. Yes, as I said earlier, God sees perfectly all possible reasons for moral actions (whether good or evil), and as a result chooses benevolence over malevolence, but, as Kel Good notes in his article on "The Assurance of God's Faithfulness," accurate knowledge or the lack thereof does not in and of itself explain ALL sin, not even most kinds of sin.
I do think that omniscience does necessitate wise choices, if we are assuming a perfectly RATIONAL, omnipotent being.
Explaining...
I see the same issue here that existed with our universalism discussion: rationality. Moral deliberation (and libertarian free activity in general) assumes rationality. Meaning that when we do things we have REASONS for what we do. Otherwise our thoughts and actions would be pretty much involuntary, and therefore not conducive for moral responsibility. Responsibility ASSUMES rationality.
This is CRUCIAL. Why? Because I believe there is a hidden assumption among all Christian theists:
God is perfectly rational.
This is not saying that God is a Mr. Spock or something like that. God is emotionally responsive. It is saying that God is never mastered by God's emotions and that God's rationality is NEVER impaired by anything. This is why we assume that God doesn't act by whimsy or out of indifference. Ever notice that? To be sure, libertarian freedom allows for bot whimsy and choosing out of indifference. But we NEVER apply this type of thinking to God. We assume that everything that God does or allows ultimately has some very good, deliberated REASON behind it. But this supreme rationality has some interesting implications...
A reasonable implication is that God's perfectly rational nature will NEVER make utterly irrational choices. That would be an impossiblity. Another implication is that God will always apply his supreme rationality to any deliberating activity that God has to do. Now when you take these ideas, and couple them with omniscience, you have a being that LITERALLY has all wisdom to work with. For this being to KNOW all of the best courses of action (which, taking your view, would lead to consistent choice to be benevolent)..and decide to choose against that knowledge is utter irrationality. And as we've said utter irrationality is IMPOSSSIBLE for a perfectly rational being.
So, what do you have...
You have a NECESSARY, perfectly rational, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being. If one contends that God's loving constancy is in ANY WAY derivative from God's knowledge of the good, then God can NOT REFRAIN from constantly choosing the good. If one assumes that omnibenevolence is the only perfectly wise way to live, the ONLY WAY that you could make God's loving activity a factor of totally free choice would be to deny that God is perfectly rational. Think about it. If God is not perfectly rational, then of course, it would be in the realm of logical possibility that God could choose not to be benevolent. But that would be a HUUUUUUUUGE issue. To posit a God who could act IRRATIONALLY would be dangerous to say the least. The idea of any moral constancy with God would be thrown out! How anyone say what a being who can be utter irrational at any time WOULD or WOULD NOT do with any certainty??
See the problem, yo? The rabbit hole just goes deeper and deeper.
Check it. I understand that having a view of moral nature that is inextricably linked with libertarian freedom is helpful in a lot of ways. I can see the appeal. But it seems to me to be unfeasible when it comes to God. I cannot see how a perfectly rational, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being can do ANYTHING less than perfectly wise. And if unchanging choice for benevolence is the most wise life decision, then God (as described above) could NOT refrain from making such a choice. And the implication from all this is simple: God's "choice" to be benevolent is NO MORE a choice to God than his incommunicable attributes.
Preciate the continuing dialogue here, John.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/27/2005 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's start with this, actually:
Would anyone here DENY that God is a perfectly rational being??
Would you deny this, John?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/27/2005 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Let's start with this, actually:
Would anyone here DENY that God is a perfectly rational being??
Would you deny this, John?
Hmmm...No, but I don't think that gives the whole picture of God any more than saying God is love does. God is certainly something MORE than JUST perfectly rational. And, it seems to me from certain narratives in scripture that God IS sometimes overwhelmed, and virtually ruled by His emotions. Like in Exodus 32, for instance; God certainly seems to be presented as having a bit of trouble controlling His anger, with Moses having to basically calm Him down.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/28/2005 12:13 AM (GMT -6) | |
MEPH:
First of all, that whole "must" thing is a wash. We can say that it's plausible that God WANTED morally autonomous beings and created them...but there's NO REASON to say that God couldn't have it any other way.
STARKMAN:
I never said that God could couldn't have it any other way. What I said was, it is plausible that The Infinite Loving Sentient being must have love returned to Him from a volitional base IF LOVE IS TO HAVE MEANINGFULNESS TO HIM (above that of a robot's or innately loving sentient being's expresson of love). No, way dude; it ain't a wash! The only thing that's gettin' washed is them robots!
MEPH:
Second, God's love is not "self-derived". God's love is NATURAL to Godself.
STARKMAN:
My bad in using the wrong terminology. I think, though, what I meant was fairly obvious, and the argument is no less valid noting an accurate phraseology.
MEPH:
If God were to have created sentient creations such that their characters were already INNATELY loving, it would be at that point that they were loving just like God. Surely, you see this right?
STARKMAN:
Again, I didn't say that Finites would not be loving just like God (we'll qualify "loving just like God" in a moment), were they created with innately loving characters. What I said was the EXPRESSIONAL MEANING of the love from the innately loving Finite to the Infinite Being does not end up on the same relational playing field. There is a difference.
Love exressed from a Robot or innately loving finite sentient being (ILFSB) can NEVER have the same depth of meaningful expressional love as that of a non-innately loving finite being (OR non-innately loving being). If I create an ILFSB to love me (I, a finite, no less), no expression of love from that being is ever going to come to the depth of love I am able to express toward it, or that another non-innately loving being can express toward me. The ILFSB can think all it wants that it has arrived in its expression of love for me, but I will never be able to see it that way. I cannot see it that way, because it is not true. I am made to have a deeper and more meaningful expression of love between me and other finites. This ain't rocket science here, folks. EVEN IF BOTH THE ILFSB AND THE NON-ILFSB THINK THEY CAN HAVE EQAUL DEPTH OF MEANINGFUL LOVE, they cannot. Programmed love is not as meaningful as non-programmed love. To argue otherwise is absurd. That is not to say that the love an animal may have for a human, for instance, is not genuine, real and even deep. It is only to say that it's love is not on the same playing field as love from a non-ILFSB.
Therefore, a metaphyscal law does, in fact, exist: love expressed from an ILFSB to a non-ILFSB will never fill full in expressional love with the depth that equals, or betters, that love which comes from a non-innately loving being.
By the way, with regard to your statement, Meph, "loving just like God." I am not saying that the essence of the love—the mechanical make-up of the material substance of love, if you will—in the finite being is not the same as Gods. I'm not arguing that at all. The "substance" can be the same; the expression cannot always be.
Until now, I've delt mostly with finite to finite. I'd like to move on to God and finite. God does not HAVE to have the freedom to choose love in order to more greatly appreciate love expressed or received from a freedom-based sentient being over and above the love expressed from an ILFSB, just as I can more greatly appreciate the love that comes from a freedom-based sentient being over and above the love that could come from an ILFSB. God's love is not on the same playing field as an ILFSB's love—the gap is too big between the love of the two. He has, however, created the utlity for bridging the gap between Himself and non-ILFSBs.
In that God's love is as eternal as He is, His love IS as He is. It is as valuable as He is. It is as meaningful as He is. And it is as deep as He is. So also is it with the IFLSB, who can not be anything other than a finite with an innately loving character; its love is only as it itself is; its love can never rise above itself. Yes, an ILFSB can love, but not in the same arena of depth as that of the love of a non-ILFSB or of God. Freedom is the bridge that allows for expressionally meaningful love to flow between the Infinite and the Finite (culminated, finally, in compabitibilistic love within the finite). The act of choosing on behalf of the finite allows for the depth of love to be raised to a higher plain than where programmed love resides. It doesn't have to be AS HIGH as Gods; it only has to rise beyond programmed love in order to be deep enough and, therefore, and more meaningful for relationship purposes. Non-IFLSB love (as far as we know) possesses the capability for being the deepest love next to necessary love. This cannot be said of IFLSB love.
God Himself does not require freedom to express or receive meaningful love. That standard of love is met in that His love is what He is. It is, necessarily, a high love. (Were it a low love, then it would be in the same playing field, or at least within reach, as the love of the ILFSB.) God's love, then, is what God Himself is in all His glory (to use a catch-phrase), above programmed love, though it is "necessary" love. That it is "necessary" only means that it is what God is WITHOUT ever having been programmed. This is what makes the gap so big between God's love and the ILFSB's love. Only freedom in a sentient being can bridge the gap between the Finite and The Only Infinite.
So, a second law exists: love expressed from an ILFSB to a necessary loving being will never fill full with enough depth of expressional meaningfulness to equal, or better, the love expressed by a non-ILFSB to an Infinite Loving Being. Why, because the utility of freedom creates the way for love to rise above the non-ILFSB and enter into the playing field where God's love resides.
MEPH:
Only current sentient creations truly have meaningfully "self-derived" love...because only THEY have the ability to self-dispose themselves towards love and genuinely originate their loving character.
and
So, there's the absurdity. God can accept his own INNATE loving nature as genuine...but then we are to speculate that God needed "self-derived" love from others? You actually seem to make the love of sentient beings BETTER than God's love by giving priority to "self-derived" love. Are you sure you wanna do that?
STARKMAN:
Wait a sec. You Just said, "because only THEY [current sentient creations] have the ability to self-dispose themselves towards love and genuinely originate their loving character." That's basically the same point I've been making all along, and specifically made in my earlier post. Obviously, then, we both can see that God is one of those who can NEVER self dispose Himself toward love and genuinely originate His loving character. Yet you asked only of me and not of yourself if I am making the love of sentient beings BETTER than God's love? You must ask yourself the same question, too, for you believe the same thing as I do about current sentient creations!
Please note that I never said God "needed" anything. Second, I haven't "speculated" about about anything, at the most, no more than you have. And third, we can, as I have already admitted, remove the "self-disposed" phrasal link and end up with no weaker of a chain You, yourself, have said, in agreement with me, that current sentient beings possess something about loving that God does not posess. We both agree, do we not, that God's love is His innately loving nature? You need to prove, then, Meph, that the mechanics of love for an ILFSB can serve the same, or even better, utility as serve the mechanics of the freedom of a non-ILFSB to a telos of meaningful expressonal love toward BOTH God AND man. What you have accomplished so far, Meph (as far as I can see) is that, plainly stated, God could have created innately loving beings. But that does not produce the same end game with those who can choose to not love. Until you can demonstrate otherwise, I cannot see how your position can prove more.
For serious conversation,
Starkman
(dang, I'm beat. Man, I wish I could lay it down the first time without editing my ba-hind off!)
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/28/2005 4:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
Ok. This is what I hear you saying...
1) It's a plausibility that the only type of responsive love that God views as meaningful (with respect to sentient creatures) is love that comes from a freely chosen source.
2) The "expressional meaning" of love is the level of aesthetic value in HOW love is expressed. Supposedly, the higher the "expressional meaning" a particular variation of expressed love has, the more aesthetic value either inherent within or attributed to said variation.
3) The "expressional meaning" of "programmed love" is less that than that of "non-programmed love". "Programmed love", I'm taking it, is when the love is not generated from a specific being's self-determining activity towards character solidification towards love.
[Note: There doesn't seem to be any truly objective reason give to why this is the case. It just seems to be assumed. ]
4) God does not have to have the capacity for self-determining love in order to appreciate an "expressional meaning" preference for "non-programmed love"
5) If we are assuming a innately-loving sentient being, the being's loving disposition is only as valuable as the being itself. In other words, that "expressional meaning" of the love that comes from a innately-loving sentient being can only be as high as the innate aesthetic value found in the being's essential existence itself.
6) God is an innately-loving sentient being.
7) Because God is the center of all worth and glory and given #5 & #6 , it stands to reason that NO other innately-loving sentient beings's "expressional meaning" could exceed God's.
8) Neither "programmed love" nor "non-programmed love" of sentient creatures could exceed God's love in terms of "expressional meaning".
9) God's innately loving nature is not "programmed" into God from outside of Godself.
10) What bridges the gap between the loving capacities of God and any finite sentient being is libertarian freedom. This is because libertarian freedom in finite sentient beings is the only way that they can come to possess innately loving natures without having them "programmed" into them from outside of themselves.
I think I have these right. Here are some thoughts that I have.
A) It seems that all of this basically goes back to the intuition that self-determination is inherently better than having non self-determination, with respect to character. To paraphrase, "a person's love just ain't 'real' if it doesn't come from THEM." If people are not the ultimate reason for their own moral identities, then their moral identities are not genuine. To this, I would respond that this is only a intution that we human beings have because of the universe that live in. We prefer this because we LIVE this. There is no other objective reason why we can say that
B) A masterful attempt is made at distinguishing God from any other conceivable innately-loving sentient being. In attempting to locate "expressional meaning" for innately-loving sentient beings in the inherent worth of the beings themselves, it is virtually guaranteed that God's NON-self determined love not be seen on the same level as that of creatures. Where having non-self determined love will be seen as robotic or mechanistic in created innately-loving sentient creatures, the same essential phenomena in God would be seen as something laudable because of God's infinitude. Simply because it is linked with God's undeniable position as the summom bonum of the universe. Again, a masterful attempt.
However, I don't think it really works. Idea # 5 is highly problematic. The aesthetic evaluation of possessing non-self-determining love is one that is DISTINCT from the totality of one's inherent aesthetic evaluation. It is definitely possible to say that the possession of non-self-determining love contributes to or detracts from a being's inherent aesthetic evaluation (even though that idea itself would be very subjective)...but it is misleading to functionally EQUATE the inherent aesthetic evaluation of non-self-determining love with the total aesthetic evaluation of the being. It seems to be using the "God IS love" concept in such a way that God's capacity of love expression is granted the immense worth of God's natural place as summom bonum. Misleading, indeed. That would be like me saying the following....
--The appearance of having blue eyes is inherently beauty-enhancing.
--Some people who have the appearance of having blue eyes have blue eyes naturally, with others wear blue-colored contacts.
--A person's amount of total beauty is increased by being in increased levels of authority in the U.S. government. The higher the level of authority, the more beautiful the person.
--The beauty-enhancing ability of natural blue eyes is directly correlated to a person's level of authority in the U.S government.
What this would effectively mean is that given any population of naturally blue-eyed people, the person in the bunch with the most governmental authority would be said to have the most enhanced beauty. But this is to confuse categories. What does this person's level of governmental authority have to do with the inherent beauty-enhancing ability of having natural blue eyes? Absolutely nothing. The fact of the matter is that the beauty-enhancing ability of naturally blue eyes is itself an idea that we can evaluate separately from the governmental level of the person having the natural blue eyes. This means that we can truly UNIVERSALIZE our evaluation of that idea such that we can apply the same criteria to any person, regardless of their level of governmental authority. In the same way, we can evaluate the phenomenon of non-self-determined love apart from WHOEVER in particular exhibits this phenomenon. If we deem that possessing non-self-determined love is not cool, then being a really cool Creator who happens to have non-self-determined love does not make the possession of that trait cool just because that Creator has it. See what I'm talking about?
So, the idea of Idea #5 doesn't really work for me. And insofar as it doesn't work for me, I see no essential difference between God having non-self-determined love and any other sentient creature possessing the same character trait.
C) I wish that we could consider something that Tom said. Bottom line: We DO give praise for things that are inherent in people. If we prefer blue eyes as being pretty, we DO give praise to people for having blue eyes. Or soft skin. Or being smart. Or a host of other things that the person's themselves may have had little to NOTHING to do with. We do this all the time. Most of all, we do this with God, with respect to God's incommunicable attributes. If this is the case, what is the big deal about positing that loving disposition is ENOUGH of a virtue in and of itself that having it innately doesn't make it any less worthy of praise and admiration.
***********************
Starkman:
You, yourself, have said, in agreement with me, that current sentient beings possess something about loving that God does not posess. We both agree, do we not, that God's love is His innately loving nature? You need to prove, then, Meph, that the mechanics of love for an ILFSB can serve the same, or even better, utility as serve the mechanics of the freedom of a non-ILFSB to a telos of meaningful expressonal love toward BOTH God AND man. What you have accomplished so far, Meph (as far as I can see) is that, plainly stated, God could have created innately loving beings. But that does not produce the same end game with those who can choose to not love. Until you can demonstrate otherwise, I cannot see how your position can prove more.
Here's the deal, man. God expects for US to be able to accept God's love as genuine...even though God cannot refrain from doing otherwise. To be blunt, God is the "holy, loving robot" par excellence. To take John's take, if we say that God's omnibenevolence is directly linked to God's omniscience (which, according to Finney, encompasses God's rationality and conscience [See Lectures 9 and 10 on John's Revival Theology page]) then it would be logically impossible for God to be other than omnibenevolent...because God cannot cease from being omniscient, being the omniscience is a natural attribute of God. God knows ALL of this...but expects us to accept God's love as genuine. Within the triunity that is God, God accepts God's own UNchosen love as genuine. For me, the essence of love CANNOT be fundamentally different between God and other sentient beings. In other words, any metaphysical law that deals with the very essence of love HAS to apply accross the board. Tom said:
It’s true for God that “finite beings must be libertarianly free to choose to love.” But since God is not a finite being, the law, though it’s true for him, doesn’t describe a proposition of which he is the subject, i.e., a truth which he instantiates. For example, it’s true for me that “a necessary being not have a cause other than itself for its existence.” That metaphysical law is true FOR all beings, necessary and contingent, though it only express a truth about its subject, i.e., necessary beings. Since I’m not a necessary being this law doesn’t apply to or embrace my own contingent existence, though the truth it expresses is true for me as well. I recognize its truth, though I don’t instantiate it.
When I'm talking about a metaphysical law of love, I am talking about something that expresses a truth that directly applies to ALL beings who can love. The tendril of continuity between how God loves Godself, how God loves sentient creatures, and how sentient creatures love one another. When it comes to libertarian freedom in whether or not to love, I don't see it operating in how God loves Godself OR how God loves sentient creatures. But I don't see most people denying God's love as NOT being genuine. That being the case, I see no reason to assert that love needs to be chosen for ANY sentient being.
I cannot prove that God's aesthetic evaluation of non-self-determined love is greater or less than that of self-determined love. What I can say is that God OBVIOUSLY esteems both in some regard because God expects both forms to be accepted. (God esteems our self-determined love...and expects us to esteem his NON-self-determined love).
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/28/2005 4:55 AM (GMT -6) | | John! I really want your thoughts on this one!
From Lecture 10: Moral Attributes of God
truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Finney/Theology/hot10.htm
-----------------
.
First. Show what is meant by a moral attribute.
A natural attribute is that which belongs to the nature of a being. A moral attribute is a disposition or state of the will. It is a permanent choice or preference of the mind, in opposition to a constitutional or natural attribute, on the one hand, and to individual exercises, on the other.
Second. What are some of the moral attributes of God.
Benevolence may be considered either as an attribute of God, or as the sum of all his moral attributes. It seems to be convenient sometimes to speak of his benevolence as an attribute, and at other times as the sum of them all. It should however, always be understood, that God's entire character, and every moral exercise of his infinite mind, is only some modification of his benevolence. And that when we speak of benevolence as an attribute we do it merely for convenience sake, and for the purpose of directing the mind particularly to that expression of it, that consists in willing good to its object. When we speak of justice, mercy, truth, wisdom, holiness, etc., we also use these terms for convenience sake, for the purpose of confining the attention to those particular modifications or expressions of benevolence. I shall consider these attributes in the order in which I have just named them, viz., Benevolence, Justice, Mercy, Truth, Wisdom, Holiness.
Moral attributes, presuppose moral agency. I will therefore, in this place, premise a few remarks upon the subject of the moral agency of God.
1. A moral agent, as has been remarked in a former lecture, is a being who possesses understanding, reason, conscience, and freewill. Understanding, reason, and conscience are all plainly implied in omniscience, for it is impossible that God should know all things without possessing these faculties.
2. That God has a will, must be certain from the fact that the whole power of mind to produce any effect without itself, lies in the will. This we know from our own consciousness to be true of ourselves, and from the phenomena exhibited to our senses, with respect to the existence and nature of God, we necessarily infer that he is a mind like ourselves, and that his power to produce effects without himself, lies wholly in his will. We are so constituted that we cannot conceive of any other possible manner in which he should produce effects without himself, any more than we can conceive the existence or nature of a class of objects which would require the addition of another sense to enable us to perceive them.
3. The existence then, and phenomena of the universe afford as high evidence that God possesses a will, as that he exists at all.
4. That the will of God is free, I infer,
(1.) From the fact that we know ourselves to be free, with as much certainty as we know that we exist.
(2.) We can form no conception of a voluntary being that is not free, for volition always implies freedom.
(3.) Volition and necessity are terms of opposition. Volition can no more be produced by force, than material changes can be produced by motives. Volition can be produced in no other way than by motive, and if produced by motive, it is absurd, and a contradiction to say that it is not free.
Third. Prove that God possesses such attributes.
BENEVOLENCE
1. God must be benevolent, or malevolent. It is impossible that he should be indifferent, or have no will at all, in respect to his own good, and the good of the universe. It were absurd, to say that he is omniscient, and yet neither wills the happiness or misery of himself or any other being.
2. God can, by no possibility, be both benevolent and malevolent at the same time. In other words, he cannot will both the happiness and misery of himself, and the universe at the same time. These are opposite states of the will, and it is absurd to suppose that they can both exist at the same time.
3. If God is malevolent at all, he must not only be perfectly, but infinitely and unchangeably malevolent. As God is an infinite being, perfect malevolence in him, is infinite malevolence, and it is absurd to say that what is infinite, can be changed.
4. If God is malevolent, he is immutably so, because he can never have any new thoughts as motives that shall induce any change in him. He cannot, from himself, or from any of his creatures, by any possibility, ever get any new information, or possess any new thoughts, and consequently his moral character, whatever it is, is unchangeable. His mind must be made up. He must have decided his own character and benevolence, or malevolence must be the unalterable state of his will.
That he is benevolent, I argue,
5. From the fact of his omniscience. He could not but know all the reasons in favor of benevolence, and all the reasons against malevolence. He could not by any possibility be ignorant of the reasons on either side, nor so divert his mind from them as that they should not have their full influence in deciding his character, and in confirming it forever. Finite beings are ignorant of many of the reasons for benevolence, and against malevolence. They may and often do divert their attention from those reasons with which they are really acquainted, and do not act under the influence of what knowledge they have. But God is omniscient. Every motive that exists, lies with all its weight upon his mind, and that constantly And as there are infinitely higher motives to benevolence than to malevolence, and as these motives are fully known, to and appreciated by God, we reasonably infer from this consideration, that he is benevolent.
---------------------------
This seems VERY, VERY clear. God's omnibenevolence, according to this Lecture, is fundamentally grounded in and inextricably linked to God's NATURAL attribute of omniscience. Between God's perfect rationality and aessthetic evaluation (conscience) [which are both entailed in God's omniscience], God's omnibenevolence is a PRODUCT of sorts of God's omniscience. What this means is that God could no more cease being benevolent as he could cease being omniscient. This also entails that if God is necessarily, unchangably omniscient...then God is necessarily, unchangably omnibenevolent.
It seems like that author of this Lecture is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, she wants to say that God has free will. On the other hand, she makes it CLEAR that God's benevolent disposition cannot be separated from God's omniscience. So much so, in fact, that God could not refrain from being immutably benevolent!
Wow.
Comments, John?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 4/28/2005 4:58:28 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/28/2005 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Just a bit more...
The Goodness of God: Can Voluntary Goodness Be Guaranteed?
twtministries.com/articles/6_free_will/goodness.html
Responding to Kel Good.
Mr. Good says this in the section of Argument from Omniscience.
Finney argues for God's goodness on the basis of His omniscience: "He could not but know all the reasons in favour of benevolence and all the reasons against malevolence. He could not by any possibility be ignorant of the reasons on either side, nor so divert His mind from them as that they should not have their full influence in deciding His character and confirming it forever.
...
Is Finney claiming that we sin because we do not know what is right? A cursory reading of Finney's theology shows us that this is not his view. Finney believed that men were only guilty for what they knew and disobeyed. What then is the meaning of the Pratney quote? It seems clear that Finney believed absolute knowledge in God would prevent the sinful choice, implying that temptation tricks us into thinking we will benefit from some forbidden act, and our limited knowledge allows us to believe this lie. It is not that we believe that true good is in a different direction, for if this were the case it would be right to take the different course. Rather, we choose to compromise what we believe to be the true good for a lesser good which we think will be satisfying. After we sin, we feel terrible and the lie is out. It did not give us what we thought it would. Before this we believe the lie of what the temptation promises us, in the face of what we believe we should do. God could not be deceived in this way, because He would have absolute knowledge of the real result of sinning in such a fashion and could not be tricked by the lie.
and then..asks this question...
While God could not be tricked by a lie, would He be incapable of choosing in spite of knowledge, to do the wrong thing for a lesser value than that which is the right thing?
It's obvious that Kel wants to affirm this as a logical possibility. He actually seems like he wants to say that God can get so tied up in his possibly inappropriate emotions that his decisions may be significantly influenced towards making less-than-optimal decisions.
Secondly, Swinburne seems to fail in his understanding of morality. How could the sense of value and obligation so inherent in moral consciousness arise in a being incapable of feeling? Morality is rational but it is also much more. It appears to be the result of our whole rational and emotional makeup. Right and wrong seem intertwined with value and good. Without the emotive side, there would be no morality, no goodness in God. God must understand and feel as we do if He is a moral being to whom praise and blame is attributable. If He feels, He can be influenced by wrong feeling.
This goes WAY beyond saying that God is emotionally receptive and responsive. This goes WAY beyond saying that God can feel emotions very intensely. This is saying that God can actually be ruled by his emotions to the point of ALMOST making unloving or unwise decisions. It's very clear that the MGT people try to stick pretty close to the commonsense reading of the Bible on this. John said:
God is certainly something MORE than JUST perfectly rational. And, it seems to me from certain narratives in scripture that God IS sometimes overwhelmed, and virtually ruled by His emotions. Like in Exodus 32, for instance; God certainly seems to be presented as having a bit of trouble controlling His anger, with Moses having to basically calm Him down.
I wonder if they understand what they are actually saying. They are implicitly affirming that God is not perfectly rational! How? Simple. A perfectly rational being is INCAPABLE of being utterly irrational. If ANYTHING can be seen as utterly irrational, it would be making a unwise decision while being literally in possession of all wisdom, motive, and power to do the wise thing. To posit that God can be possibly do something like this is to DENY God being perfectly rational. Again, a perfectly rational being is NOT a emotionless Dr. Spock that only operates by logic. A perfectly rational being can be perfectly emotionally engaged (and God is)! However, a perfectly rational being is one whose "reason, understanding, and conscience" ALWAYS maintains primary leadership over one's deliberative process. But the question is...IS God perfectly rational?
Finney states of God
Natural perfection is one of his attributes. That is, his nature is absolutely perfect; no conceivable improvement could be made in it. This is also implied in his self-existence. Our necessary conception of God is that of a being infinite in all his attributes; no conceivable improvement could be made in them; in other words, the conception of any limit to any one of them is impossible.
This would obviously include God's omniscience...which encompasses God's understanding, reason, and conscience. In other words, God has PERFECT understanding, reason, and conscience. So, yep, God, according to Finney, is perfectly rational.
What all this adds up to (but what Kel obviously doesn't see) is that saying that God can be heavily affected by God's emotions and saying that it is logically possible for God to leap into UTTER IRRATIONALITY via those emotions are two separate things. A perfectly rational being cannot, by definition, do something utterly irrational. So, given God's omniscience, God could not do something utterly irrational as choosing against the good in the face of said omniscience!
No offense, but Kel's got this one all the way wrong.
Thoughts, John?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 4/28/2005 7:10 AM (GMT -6) | | wow. this is a great thread! Too bad I have no time... where did Tom go anywayz?
Oh, and mephi, maybe if you avoided the M word ppl wouldn't be boxing you in and calling
you names  ... on second thought, if no one ruffled your feathers we would miss out on
hip hop breaks. it's all about us, so...
blessings and joy,
love
selah
1 Corinthians 2:1-5
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/28/2005 11:01 AM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...John: Like in Exodus 32, for instance; God certainly seems to be presented as having a bit of trouble controlling His anger, with Moses having to basically calm Him down. Jeff: Aye, but had God wiped them out and started anew with Moses (and company?) would that have been "wrong?" The very fact that He intended to create a new nation from Moses demonstrates God's determination to remain faithful to His promises to the fathers, does it not? I don't see that God's righteousness would have been compromised had He consumed them - any more, say, than it was in the plagues in Egypt.
Hi Jeff,
My point in referencing Ex. 32 was not to say that God was unrighteous in His anger, but was instead simply to say that He was apparently losing His temper, so to speak. Certainly, had He decided to destroy all Israel and start over with Moses he would have been justified in doing so.
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/28/2005 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | |
MephEternal said...
John! I really want your thoughts on this one!
Why? So you can make me look dumb?  (Kidding). Seriously, it's nice to have one's thoughts wanted.
This seems VERY, VERY clear. God's omnibenevolence, according to this Lecture, is fundamentally grounded in and inextricably linked to God's NATURAL attribute of omniscience. Between God's perfect rationality and aessthetic evaluation (conscience) [which are both entailed in God's omniscience], God's omnibenevolence is a PRODUCT of sorts of God's omniscience. What this means is that God could no more cease being benevolent as he could cease being omniscient. This also entails that if God is necessarily, unchangably omniscient...then God is necessarily, unchangably omnibenevolent.
Yes, I have to agree.
It seems like that author of this Lecture is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, she wants to say that God has free will. On the other hand, she makes it CLEAR that God's benevolent disposition cannot be separated from God's omniscience. So much so, in fact, that God could not refrain from being immutably benevolent!
Comments, John?
First, Finney was definitely not a she. 
Second, I think I have said this very thing earlier in this thread, when I admitted that God's benevolence is based upon his omniscience.
Third, I see the apparent contradiction you raise in both my view and Finney's view, and will have to give the whole thing further thought. Thanks for making me think hard, Meph. I really appreciate people who challenge my thinking.
Fourth, I definitely don't consider myself an expert in Finney's theology, just a student and admirer. I will ask some trusted cyberfriends of mine these questions, and hopefully they will have an answer more satisfying to you.
I also (of course) don't think anyone but God is infallible when speaking of or for God.
Finally, I will unfortunately not be able to spend as much time here in the next few days as I have earlier this week, so I must ask for more time to respond. In addition, the fact that your questions often make my head hurt also requires that I give them the time and thought that they deserve, lest I answer foolishly.
Blessings,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/28/2005 12:02:10 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/28/2005 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...John, a question. If you were somehow convinced that God's loving nature were "robotic" and merely an emergent property of God's necessary omniscience, what would that change for your view of God? I've heard you say this: It seems to me that a denial of the "love must be chosen" principle completely destroys the foundational argument in the trinitarian warfare theodicy in particular and free will theism in general. If God has no meaningful free will except in a compatibilistic sense, then neither do any of us necessarily, and Calvinism or Universalism are perfectly reasonable alternatives philosophically. So...does this mean that if we continue deconstructing TWT 1 as a so-called metaphysical principle that you'll become a variation of a Universalist or a Calvinist?  In all seriousness, what would change in your view of God?
I've said before that my objections to Universalism are basically biblical rather than philosophical. I have admitted before that philosophically Universalism doesn't present an insurmountable problem. But, being from a staunch biblicist background as I am (I think you can relate to the mindset I'm referring to), I do not feel free to dismiss the biblical evidence against universalism.
Perhaps oddly, my primary objections to Calvinism (though I see strong similarities btw it and uni-ism) are more philosophical than biblical per se. I can certainly understand how someone could come to the conclusion exegetically that Calvinism was true, though I honestly can't see how they could be satisfied with that view philosophically or psychologically.
That said, free will theist that I am, I of course affirm a potential universalism, the idea that everybody could be saved if they would, and that God would be MOST happy if all were.
For the past several months, my views of God have definitely been stretching. Not sure precisely where I'll end up, but, due to my undeniable (and in some cases miraculous) experiences of God as benevolent (and like the Jesus of the Bible) in the past, I honestly can't see myself becoming an atheist, agnostic, or Calvinist ever.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/28/2005 11:52:58 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/28/2005 11:46 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Just a bit more... The Goodness of God: Can Voluntary Goodness Be Guaranteed? twtministries.com/articles/6_free_will/goodness.htmlJohn said: God is certainly something MORE than JUST perfectly rational. And, it seems to me from certain narratives in scripture that God IS sometimes overwhelmed, and virtually ruled by His emotions. Like in Exodus 32, for instance; God certainly seems to be presented as having a bit of trouble controlling His anger, with Moses having to basically calm Him down. I wonder if they understand what they are actually saying. They are implicitly affirming that God is not perfectly rational! How? Simple. A perfectly rational being is INCAPABLE of being utterly irrational.
Hi Meph,
I think you misunderstand me on this point. I did not say God was capable of being utterly irrational, or even that He was capable of being irrational at all.
What I did say was that He was MORE than perfectly rational, which is basically the same thing I hear you saying when you say God is not an "emotionless Dr. Spoke that only operates by logic."
I also think it would be a mistake for you to take me as some kind of spokesperson for MGT, and that "MGT people," as you call them, would all have the same answers to the quite valid issues you raise as I would.
Blessings,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 4/28/2005 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | |
Meph said...
C) I wish that we could consider something that Tom said. Bottom line: We DO give praise for things that are inherent in people. If we prefer blue eyes as being pretty, we DO give praise to people for having blue eyes. Or soft skin. Or being smart. Or a host of other things that the person's themselves may have had little to NOTHING to do with. We do this all the time.
But do we give such praise deservedly?
In the case of a person who is highly intelligent, to the degree that her intelligence is innate and not developed through discipline (for it is demonstrably true that people can IMPROVE their IQ score by exercising their brain with logical puzzles, etc.) GOD, nature, DNA, the parents biology, the mother's nutritional choices, etc., constitute the reason she is so intelligent.
This is even more the case with regard to eye color.
I honestly don't see how "praise" is the proper thing to give a created being for such things.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.cjb.netPost Edited (JEE) : 4/28/2005 12:37:29 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/28/2005 2:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Been busy. Moving furniture, blah blah blah. Too much to catch up with blow for blow. I'll just say now that I'm skeptical of the idea that "goodness" follows from "omniscience" necessarily. That makes sin about "ignorance" more than "choice."
HA! Already beat ya there, buddy. I had a nice little talk with Doc about this just yesterday. He asked me the same question. He said "Are you saying that sin is a function of ignorance??" I says "HAYell, yeah! I believe sin can only either ultimately be a function of ignorance or irrationality." He says, "Dude, how in the world do you think that" So I says something like..
Check it out, Doc. Look at John Hick's soul-making theodicy. Look at the idea of epistemic distance. The ENTIRE POINT of epistemic distance in Hick's theodicy model is to provide a context where moral deliberation can take place! Remember??? If there is no epistemic distance (ignorance of reality = 0), there there could NO morally significant choices. If one wants to assume moral autonomy, then that one HAS to posit some ambiguity by which that moral autonomy has a space to present itself! This whole line of thinking ASSUMES that sin is a function of ignorance.
He sat back in his chair, looked at me and said..."Okay, well, I can grant you that."
He said that he had primarily understood sin as irrationality...BUT ALSO noted that Talbott basically decimated this argument in the Universalism books. Since morally accountable sin ASSUMES rationality of some sort (else it would be as involuntary as a convulsion), to posit sin as utter irrationality is idiotic. The most a person could say is that sin arises from dysfunctionally-oriented aesthetic evaluation...which is within the bounds of rationality.
So, he ended up conceding my ultimate point: sin truly IS a function of ignorance. Which is why the omniscient God could NEVER sin.
For a omnipotent, sentient being with perfect wisdom, perfect rationality, and a perfect conscience... to KNOW the good truly IS to do the good!!
Peep game, man! 
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 4/28/2005 2:53:14 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 117 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:30 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 |
|
|