 |
 | 
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/26/2005 10:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Tom: It's THIS (the unfulfilled but justified expectation of an omniscient God) which cannot be explained if it's true that indeterminate events by defintion have only one possible objective probabilty, that of .5. It would leave God, an omniscient knower, with no grounds for ever 'expecting' a particular outcome in indeterminate cases. Objective probabilities of .5 disallow expectations. It would also leave completely unexplained divine surprise. Why would a God who knows there's a .5 chance that an event will occur possibly be surprised when the event turns out a particular way...either way? There's no justification for either 'expectation' (one way or the other) or 'surprise' (one way or the other) in cases of indeterminate events having a probabilty of .5 of occuring. You only get that when the improbable occurs (or the probable fails to occur--same thing).
Laika: I really don't know what your argument is, is it the .5 that bothers you? I think Sahid is using .5 as just an example, a placeholder for a real value that none of us know. Call it 'P' if you don't like .5
The probability of me understanding what you post is .5 and I'm ALWAYS surprised when it's coherent. 
You still haven't explained how weaving into an arbitrary story an arbitrary "less than 1. Close, but less" has any compelling evidence that the fiction is true in any way.
Laika: But your [Mephi’s] arbitrary tale has no more compelling reasons to believe than the millions of other arbitrary tales that have been told around the world throughout history.
Do you know what "arbitrary" means? You made your story up.
Tom: That’s not what ‘arbitrary’ means. [It] without purpose or reason.
Laika: That's what I meant. The tale is "arbitrary: i.e. determined by whim, impulse and not by reason or principle. Based on individual preference."
Laika: And you and Tom's argument boils down to, WE wish universalism were true, therefore it must be. (And by implication the rest of us want to see people "burn in hell").
Tom: I knew I shouldn’t have opened up like I did. Something told me it would be misunderstood this way. But Laika, how can you really think the ONLY reasons Mephi has for believing what he does is that he ‘wishes’ it were true? Come on dude!
Laika: I wish pigs could fly, therefore it must be true.
Tom: If that’s what all Mephi’s posts on this issue boil down to, then I don’t think an hour (or two, or three) doing some face to face would help. After reading everything he’s said about this, saying he’s offered no reason whatsoever for his view except that he’d like it to be true is, well, is astounding. Surely this can’t be what Mephi’s posts amount to for you. Tell me I’m wrong!
Laika: I looked at his ten points and nothing in there was anchored in anything other than his whim. Anything in there could as easily, arbitrarily and capriciously be changed and it would be just as uncompelling.
Laika: …about probability, it made no sense to me. Whatever you think about probability, an arbitrarily made up number has as little compelling reason to believe as the rest of your fiction.
Tom: Arghghghgh! Obviously we aren’t the omniscient ones. We wouldn’t always know infallibly whether an indeterminate event was ‘probable’ or ‘improbable’ or 50/50. But believing that there are in fact improbable and probable indeterminate events is so extrreeeeeemly simple I can’t believe you guys are struggling with this.
Laika: Probability was introduced into the fanciful tale as (I believe) a roundabout way to implying causality to the bottom of the rock concept.
Tom: Then you think the probability of a starving man eating food when offered to him is greater than 50/50. It’s probable that he’ll eat. THANK YOU!
Laika: Not when his will is set against eating.
Tom: Well, maybe Mephi needs to call his view something other than ‘universalism’. Maybe that’s what’s leading you to think he’s claiming absolute, statistical, unqualified, 100% assurance that everybody will be saved. But at rock bottom he’s not, and he’s said so. He’s said the probability is less than 1. Close, but less. So let’s call it a ‘justified hope’.
Laika: OK, let's see the math that he used to arrive at "less than 1. Close, but less" AND what it's grounded in.
What are his tales grounded in?
wishful whimsy
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/26/2005 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | JEE: (emphasis mine)
Though he claims originality, Meph's views appear to be nothing more and nothing less than what has historically been called, "Christian Universalism"
WTF? When did I ever claim originality for the thought of Christian universalism??
Man, this stuff is gettin' way outta hand. I never intended to make this a thread about universalism at all. I decided to engage Laika after he basically articulated that his challenges were NOT being addressed to his satisfaction. (Check his posts.) Then a big tangent exploded. The chief intent of this thread was much more about how we think about God as displayed in the OT and how that view relates to our internal views of God.
Let's just get back to that, then...
*****************
Tom:
Well, maybe Mephi needs to call his view something other than ‘universalism’. Maybe that’s what’s leading you to think he’s claiming absolute, statistical, unqualified, 100% assurance that everybody will be saved. But at rock bottom he’s not, and he’s said so. He’s said the probability is less than 1. Close, but less. So let’s call it a ‘justified hope’.
Good call, man. I'm down with that. If the term "universalism" is gonna cause THAT much, then lose it. I don't care. Fine. I believe that I have a "justified hope" that there's eventual universal reconciliation MAY be achieved. Everyone happy now?
**********************
Laika:
OK, let's see the math that he used to arrive at "less than 1. Close, but less" AND what it's grounded in.
What are his tales grounded in?
Laika, did you not follow along on the 3 multiple page threads in which I talked about this issue? Tom and I talked this to DEATH, got into all kinds of issues and evertything. Remember when I said I wanted to make sure the idea of universal reconciliation was feasible philosophically before I delved hardcore into scripture? Remember how I did an excursis on the idea of "dispositions" and talked about it's relationship to the process idea of the soul? Remember my discussion on the preservation of moral autonomy and the concern THAT placed upon theologians for the idea of an eternal hell?? Don't you remember any of that?? I know JEE probably does. That's probably part of the reason why he doesn't want to go BACK into it.
Yo, man. Let's just get together and talk. That'd probably be better. Yeah.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/26/2005 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Laika: I really don't know what your argument is, is it the .5 that bothers you? I think Sahid is using .5 as just an example, a placeholder for a real value that none of us know. Call it 'P' if you don't like .5.
Tom: .5 is fine. What Sahid claimed is that ALL indeterminate events by definition have a probability of .5 of occurring; thus, none are objectively ‘probable’ (probability of greater than .5 and less than 1) or objectively ‘improbable’ (probability of less than .5 and greater than 0). It’s this denial of the ‘probable’ and ‘improbable’ that I was addressing.
But that the objectively ‘improbable’ and ‘probable’ exist is important to Mephi’s view because he bases his hope on the very high (but less than 1) probability of people crying out to God for mercy in hell. Sahid claimed that when it comes to choices there is one and only one probability: .5, or 50/50, which of course would give no one, God included, any reason for expecting a particular outcome. Optimism and hope would not be possible for Mephi if the probability of personal choice were always, by definition, .5.
--------------------
Laika: You still haven't explained how weaving into an arbitrary story an arbitrary "less than 1. Close, but less" has any compelling evidence that the fiction is true in any way.
Tom: Now I’m confused! Ha. I wasn’t linking ‘arbitrariness’ and ‘probabilities’. I don’t think there’s any connection. They just happened to be two things that came up in the convo. Against Sahid I wanted to argue for the objective reality of the ‘improbable’ and the ‘probable’. Against you I wanted to argue that Mephi’s view wasn’t ‘arbitrary’. No connection between ‘em.
---------------------
Laika: That's what I meant. The tale is "arbitrary: i.e. determined by whim, impulse and not by reason or principle. Based on individual preference."
Tom: Eh, then you’re incorrect still.  A person’s ‘wanting’ a particular thing to be true doesn’t make his believing it to be true arbitrary if the person has reasons other than his wanting it to be true for believing it to be true. Mephi wants to be optimistic and hopeful about the fate of those in hell. OK. If that’s the ONLY reason he had, his view would be arbitrary. But it’s not the only reason he’s offered for being hopeful about the fate of the damned. There happens to be a very early tradition among the Fathers that all would be saved. And their reasons for believing this are on record--and they don't boil down to their 'just arbitrariliy wanting it to be so'. There happens to be at least some biblical/theological evidence that all will be reconciled. There happen to be arguments for at least the plausibility of the idea that an all-loving God would do all he could, including pursuing those in hell, to redeem all. And that all would eventually choose life is at least ‘possible’, unlike flying pigs. Given the truth of other things we believe about God and freedom, a ‘coherent’ case can be made for justifying Mephi’s optimisim and hope. That’s all I’m saying. The hope doesn’t just spring out uncaused from Mephi’s head. That WOULD be scary!
-----------------------
Tom: Then you think the probability of a starving man eating food when offered to him is greater than 50/50. It’s probable that he’ll eat. THANK YOU!
Laika: Not when his will is set against eating.
Tom: Obviously. Not even Mephi would claim otherwise. But persons who wish to starve themselves have ‘reasons’ for wanting to starve themselves. They don’t ‘arbitrarily’ (you’ll like that!) choose to starve themselves. And nobody would starve themselves who did not have very strong reasons for believing their doing so served some purpose. Given the removal of any ‘reason’ one might have for setting himself against God in hell, that is, given the agent’s being brought by his suffering in hell to face the stark realities of what’s reasonable and not, what’s best for her and not, etc., it seems plausible that there would be nothing left to hang one's hat on in hell to make one's rejection of God anything but arbitrary. And we know you don't like arbitrary things! What's more, what can be ‘arbitrary’ about believing it more probable than not that such a person would choose, eventually, for God? I’m not saying I even agree. I’m just saying that one can believe this is the case without being so arbitrarily.
-------------------
Tom: Well, maybe Mephi needs to call his view something other than ‘universalism’. Maybe that’s what’s leading you to think he’s claiming absolute, statistical, unqualified, 100% assurance that everybody will be saved. But at rock bottom he’s not, and he’s said so. He’s said the probability is less than 1. Close, but less. So let’s call it a ‘justified hope’.
Laika: OK, let's see the math that he used to arrive at "less than 1. Close, but less" AND what it's grounded in.
Tom: It’s all in the past posts. I argued against him for most of it before dropping out and even I know that he grounded his claims in things other than merely his wish that it be so. I certainly don’t have the time to go dig up all the posts, but they’re there if you wanna wade through ‘em!
Peace out dudes,
Tom
"doGfood itself is good" SahidPost Edited (TGB) : 7/26/2005 11:33:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/26/2005 1:39 PM (GMT -6) | | OK, well I feel like stepping into the fray which this, like so many of Mephi's threads seems to have become....
Firstly as to Mephi's universalism thing, I can see why he goes for it, I can see that the analogy works, but I think the analogy is probably wrong, yes there may be something tempting about the presence of God for these people, but their pride and self-centeredness goes way beyond anything which would make them change in my opinion - I think that analogies that take the other stance from Mephi need to be looked at as well, analogies can be used to make pretty much anything look good.
Theodicy - well, erm, it's a tough one, I think I'll go for a couple of points though
- Pain and suffering is not the pervading experience onboard planet earth, yes when it happens it can be terrible, but there are factors there in nature which ensure if left on its own it should be brief, there are mechanisms which minimise it as much as possible.
- God is weird and wonderful eh? well it does sound something like the response Job would probably have had to God's revelations at the end of his tale - we just can't see the big picture.
- Ultimately I don't see why God can't have adequate reasons for making a creation such as the one in which we find ourselves (although admitting that stuff's probably gone wrong quite a bit along the way to where we are now!!), obviously the good that he sees in it and in what will come out of it in the end hugely outweighs the evil in it somehow.
- I can see why natural evil must always have been something of a problem for animals (who, incidentally probably don't experience it to quite the same degree as us), but I don't see why it should always have been a problem for humans, yes, this is the free will defence, but I don't see why if God initially established this creation such that his spirit was powerfully alongside the first human community he couldn't have provided them with more than they would ever need to live in what would have been very close to paradise.
Erm, yeah, and the stuff about hope is good too, I liked that. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/26/2005 5:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Quick comment...
We dare not attribute a vacumed atmosphere for faith and free will to operate. There are many, many things that influence our faith and our free will. We are simply not in a vacume where nothing influences our faith and free will.
It isn't the least bit compromising for God to cut a clear picture, to paint a scenario, to give good reason, to do anything, for that matter, which clears the mind and allows for sentient beings to see light at the end of the tunnel. There's nothing contrary to free will or faith in these things. All the time God is doing these very things for us while we live. He manifests Himself in ways that help us to exercise free will and faith in and towards Him. Those techniques are acceptable. So, if in a post-mortem setting God continues to do the same (albeit in a bit of a different environment than terra firma), He is still working within allowable parameters. If it's OK for Him to appear to people, to give them visions, to do miracles in their lives while they're alive in order to get their attention (all these do not violate faith or free will), then it is perfectly acceptable for Him to do the same post-mortem. Logically, just because someone is dead does not automatically mean that person no longer has the any need to have faith or to express free will. Further, it doesn't mean that they cannot exercise faith and free will. Those expressions are not expressions in vacumes. At death, one can still look God straight in the eyes and say, "I HATE YOU. Leave me alone. Let me do it my way." Faith is not relegated to a vacumed concept of just believing. The Greek word itself carries the concept of action; the idea being that one can have all kinds of head knowledge (visions, dreams and the like) without putting action into a trust factor. This goes on every day, and active/action-toward-God is the kind of faith God wants.
Free will falls into the same arena. It isn't just total vacumed free will making a choice that God is interested in or has asked of us. It is free will in view of the clarity of the mind and heart seeing light at the end of the tunnel. And, apart from the scriptural issues, God can create the same context demanding the same result both pre- and post-mortem. I mean, what's so hard for God to reserve a post-mortem soul in an atmosphere where there is still epistemic distance that allows for God to work with that soul in a manner which will bring about faith and hope in, and love toward, Him? Nothing at all. He does it while we're alive, He can do it when we are dead.
Finally, apart from dealing with scripture, Meph's arguments are very sound, well thought out and should provoke us all to think through the issue. Yes, there is still the need to address this issue scripturally, and I admit that those are going to be challenging. But apart from the scriptural side of this, Meph's arguments are hardly to be tossed out...arbitrarily!
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 | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/26/2005 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
Free will falls into the same arena. It isn't just total vacumed free will making a choice that God is interested in or has asked of us. It is free will in view of the clarity of the mind and heart seeing light at the end of the tunnel. And, apart from the scriptural issues, God can create the same context demanding the same result both pre- and post-mortem. I mean, what's so hard for God to reserve a post-mortem soul in an atmosphere where there is still epistemic distance that allows for God to work with that soul in a manner which will bring about faith and hope in, and love toward, Him? Nothing at all. He does it while we're alive, He can do it when we are dead.
For what it’s worth, I took the Mephmobile ride down Universalism Lane. I share Meph’s compassion for those on the road to Hell. With that said, I still deserve nothing short of Hell myself. I believe Tom said something to the same effect, “deserving hell”. (good luck trying to find that or any other quote).
Anyways, I’m cool with Meph’s ten points, I agree with all of them. Oh, with one small catch... it all needs to take place in this life, in the reality of this world. Check it out yourself by rereading the ten points with the lens of this world. And keep in mind, there is no promise life will always be fair.
Neither bad theology nor good theology gives us the knowledge of God which changes a person's heart. "Taste and see that the Lord is good!" (Psalm 34:8). There is a knowledge that only comes through tasting LIFE. Five seconds of honey on the tongue will show you more sweetness than ten hours (or eons in hell) of lectures about the sweetness of honey. By trusting God in this life, by having faith and by tasting life we see that the Lord is good. This life cries out songs that reveal His goodness that deepens our knowledge, transforms out hearts and saves our souls.
The POINT is you need an experience in LIFE not in DEATH to see God. You might draw closer to God in the shadowlands of death now in life, but not six feet under. Shadows of Heaven and Hell are in your face right here in this probationary world. You can see in this world, both the works of God and the works of the god of this age. But, you won’t see God in hell or Satan in Heaven, this world has a Y in the middle of the road that separates for eternity. God won't be found in hell working to get you out, Jesus has already been there done that. Today, now in each moment we need trust with out stretched arms for His pierced hands of salvation.
So I ask, where is this post mortem community, where is this mystery world (is Jesus being crucified in post mortem worlds) where we can act out our love instead of sinning on people? How can faith be tested outside this world of Temptation? I ask again Meph & Starkman, how can faith be tested outside the reality of this world’s TEMPTATION?!?!?!?! Death in Hell is isolation, only love spent in LIFE is salvageable, love is not found outside the community of life.
The reality of Jesus dying happened in this world so our reality can be fully realized in the new creation yet to come. In the interim the time is now -- it’s this current world that prepares us for the new world yet to come. Live in the now and remember, the only thing you can take with you tomorrow is the love you give away today.
Love on - peace out,
Mark
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 7/26/2005 7:15:10 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/27/2005 10:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph's Final(?) Word on the Universalism/Justified Hope/Whatever Thing
God is love. In the end, God will be victorious over all of God's enemies. Everying aligned with the Kingdom of God will exist in God's presence and love. Everything that is not aligned with the Kingdom of God will be judged and experience eternal destruction. God will salvage everthing that can be possibly be salvaged. In this, God will be "all in all"
This is from one of the universalism threads from a while back. I think this is something that annihilationists, eternal concious suffering people, AND universalists can agree with. Universalists just have a little more hope about what can possibly be salvaged is all.
Ending on common ground...hopefully,
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/27/2005 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | |
JEE said...The millions upon millions of people (all of them) who have passed through this life have all had the perfectly good ability to obey what they KNOW about God (Rom. 1), and yet because they did not WANT to retain the knowledge of God in their minds, they suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. Therefore ALL people are without excuse for their denial of God's right to govern their lives (unbelief). All of this is plainly laid out in Romans 1. According to Romans 1 (and the rest of script ure, actually) ignorance does not MERIT damnation; willfully sinning against the light one already has is what merits damnation. As Peter said in Acts 10, "Whoever fears God, and does what is right is accepted of Him." John
Hey john,
I've come to understand Romans in quite a different light after reading more about the setting of the letter (particularly NT Wright's stuff). I don't think Romans 1 can be used to substantiate a generic or causal dictum about those who have not heard the gospel.
The tone of Paul's opening is to reflect something very serious about the Lordship of Christ in complete contrast to Caeser and Caeser's contempt for the one true God (very few people know that Caeser offered salvation and righteousness to all; this was the catalyst for Paul's opener in Romans). Romans 1 is not written in the generic sense: "Ok, let me tell you about the unsaved, the lost, those who don't know God." It's about making it clear that Jesus is Lord, that the God of heaven is the true God, and that Rome is not the center of the universe. It is pagan Rome verses non-pagan Christianity.
In view of this, Paul is specifically condemning the pagan practices and the rebellion that florished in Rome and all of its surrounding dominion. He is not generically addressing every single person who has never heard the gospel and who has never heard of Jesus. So it is too drastic of an interpretation to broaden Romans 1 to mean that EVERYONE knows that there's a God, and that they're in rebellion, that they all know what they're doing and not only enjoy it but try to get others involved in their sin. That's not at all, in my reading, what Paul is saying.
It isn't realistic to conclude that absolutely everyone can work through the "evidence" of their being only one god and concluding that we are all sinners and in rebellion against this God, that we haven't done what He has asked. Quite the contrary: there are many people who can't think along these lines at all. They don't possess the insight or reasoning ability to work through things of this nature. There's a LOT of people like this.
Finally, there are all those people who are impaired, who are too young, who are mentally handicapped—we can't say, "Well, God knows their hearts" expecting Him to forgive them but not do so for many others who simply haven't heard. That simply doesn't work.
Got to run...
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 | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/27/2005 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Starkman,
I really don't see how anyone can reasonably doubt, if they truly affirm Paul's argumentation in Romans 1, that all men are without excuse.
As far as the mentally handicapped, etc., again, as Romans 1, 2, and 3 clearly demonstrate, everyone is responsible to the extent of their KNOWLEDGE (for what they KNOW), so the mentally handicapped and those otherwise mentally impaired will be judged completely fairly to my understanding.
NT Wright has some very interesting things to say, but on Romans 1 and 2 I find he makes no sense at all, and actually flatly contradicts Paul's argument. How many people does Paul say are "without excuse?"
Why anyone would have a problem with Paul's assertion about every individual's 100% responsibility for his or her own sin is truly a wonder, and is in fact a study in itself at "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness."
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 7/27/2005 3:33:38 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/27/2005 5:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Keith: They don't possess the insight or reasoning ability to work through things of this nature. There's a LOT of people like this.
Jeff: How many people do you know, who weren't previously indoctrinated in polytheism, that have a hard time understanding monotheism? I've never met one. There are even atheists like Richard Dawkins who have said that atheism could not even be considered intellectually respectable until Darwin. What I've found in my experience is that the less intellectually sophisticated a person is, the more likely he/she will believe in a benevolent creator of some kind. It is precisely philosophical reflection that tends to make people "doubt." Indeed, that's what this thread is about - the sheer difficulty of accounting for a intuitively benevolent creator once you reflect on all the issues that bear upon the question.
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 7/27/2005 5:53:51 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/27/2005 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: .5 is fine. What Sahid claimed is that ALL indeterminate events by definition have a probability of .5 of occurring; thus, none are objectively ‘probable’ (probability of greater than .5 and less than 1) or objectively ‘improbable’ (probability of less than .5 and greater than 0). It’s this denial of the ‘probable’ and ‘improbable’ that I was addressing.
Zach: That is not what I claimed. I claim that all freely willed choices must be choices from two or more possible options. If at least two options are not possible, it's not free. Any probability assigned to a free choice either does injustice to the concept of probability or the concept of freedom. Let's say that every day I eat a piece of the best cake in the world, and every day it's a perfectly blissful experience. What's the probability that I will eat a piece tomorrow? Well, if I'm free, I'm free. Maybe I get curious about other foods. Maybe I want to start disciplining myself. Maybe I start caring about my weight. Maybe a free choice is not determined by probability. Maybe this part of the future doesn't exist yet. There are two choices and there is no way to set the odds, so the best we can do is leave it at the default. Since future free decisions leave everyone ignorant as to what will be chosen, no one has the perspective needed to give odds.
You could look back at past free choices, do some math, and say that you have calculated what the (then unknown) probabilities where at the time based on what actually happened. But in doing so you would be denying that the choices were in fact free. I can calculate the odds on an unbalanced die, by this method, because there is no freedom involved. But if the die (or human) is free, we must admit that it just as easily could have been completely different.
Now if you want to get into God predicting human action, I'd say that's where character solidification makes sense.
Tom: Also, Sahid and Laika, I never said or supposed that you in fact enjoy the idea of people being in hell.
Zach: Where did I ever get that idea?
Tom: Yay! Let 'em burn! Burn baby burn. Hmmm, smell their burning flesh...and the logic of our proofs! Gosh, I don't know. It just bothers me that we seemingly feel so good about the truth that hell will remain populated forever, as if we actually WANTED it that way.
Zach: Then what are you supposing here? I don't know what I (or Laika) wrote to make it seem like I feel good about hell. I don't recall even remotely hinting that I wanted it that way.
Tom: As much as I love truth, that's one truth I'd weep my way into, kicking and screaming. Guess I wish we were more tearful and less satisfied in being right.
Zach: I'm glad to hear that you know the number of tears I've shed and for what reasons. Can you guess my weight too?
I would love to have a discussion about how a free event can be controlled by probability. I'd love for you to prove me wrong and to realize that one of my good friends (for whom I have surely not shed enough tears) is not forever doomed to hell. That would be great. But when a person's views are written off by their supposed impure motivations, I start to think about pearls and swine. To assume that anyone has not dealt with the pain of losing someone close or to assume that they hate the thought of being wrong more than the thought of another's pain in hell is... I don't know. Someone else fill in the blank.
This is a forum devoted to open theism. "Heretical", "impurely motivated", open theism. Of all places this should be one where we don't accuse each other of "just wanting to be right." I would think most of us here know first hand how easily one can claim knowledge of another's heart, while at the same time betraying their utter ignorance.
Despite all this Tom, you hit the nail on the head. Burn baby burn. Hmmm, smell their burning flesh...and the logic of our proofs! I can't wait to watch 'em burn.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/27/2005 6:43:43 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/27/2005 6:59 PM (GMT -6) | |
JEE said...Hi Starkman, I really don't see how anyone can reasonably doubt, if they truly affirm Paul's argumentation in Romans 1, that all men are without excuse. As far as the mentally handicapped, etc., again, as Romans 1, 2, and 3 clearly demonstrate, everyone is responsible to the extent of their KNOWLEDGE (for what they KNOW), so the mentally handicapped and those otherwise mentally impaired will be judged completely fairly to my understanding. NT Wright has some very interesting things to say, but on Romans 1 and 2 I find he makes no sense at all, and actually flatly contradicts Paul's argument. How many people does Paul say are "without excuse?" Why anyone would have a problem with Paul's assertion about every individual's 100% responsibility for his or her own sin is truly a wonder, and is in fact a study in itself at "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." John
Hey John,
A king in the Old Testament is said to have conquered all the world; a country is said to rule all nations. "All" doesn't mean literally all the world or every nation. There is both cultural use and contextual meaning of the the word "all." NT Wright makes the most sense in Romans 1-2, because he understands well why Paul is even talking about the Gentiles, the Jews and Rome: it is all in view of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the one true God. That's not hard at all to understand, and it certainly makes a lot of sense...to me, at least.
It is, therefore, not good interpretation (based on the "all" or "whole" argument) of Romans 1 to conclude that the issue is some generic sermon Paul is giving meant to include every person everywhere. Further, Paul's point is not to condem all to hell who have not heard the gospel or have not come to reason out that there's one true God, that we're in disobedience with Him (heavens, how many people can even get started figuring that out without the help of evangelism to answer the many questions that are mixed in with that issue?).
Are you really ready to condem "all" to hell...all, John, simply because they haven't heard the gospel and don't know about the one true God? That you say they will be judged fairly doesn't answer this question. For me, I'm not willing to say that EVERY single person in this category is off to hell when he or she dies.
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 | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/27/2005 7:07 PM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...Keith: They don't possess the insight or reasoning ability to work through things of this nature. There's a LOT of people like this. Jeff: How many people do you know, who weren't previously indoctrinated in polytheism, that have a hard time understanding monotheism? I've never met one. There are even atheists like Richard Dawkins who have said that atheism could not even be considered intellectually respectable until Darwin. What I've found in my experience is that the less intellectually sophisticated a person is, the more likely he/she will believe in a benevolent creator of some kind. It is precisely philosophical reflection that tends to make people "doubt." Indeed, that's what this thread is about - the sheer difficulty of accounting for a intuitively benevolent creator once you reflect on all the issues that bear upon the question.
Hey Jeff,
I'm not saying people can't [i]understand[/i] monotheism. I'm saying that there's a ton of people out there--every day ordinary people--who don't even know how to start to think through these issues. They're not even clued in that there is even an issue. Surely you've met people like this. They're all over. They don't have the slightest idea about thinking about these kinds of things. Some are even so bland in their mental capacity of thinking spiritually that they don't even know how to spell the word, so to speak.
Are we to believe that God's going to look these people in the eye and say, "Well, you're without excuse. You should have known that I exist, that you are a sinner, that you need a savior and that there's only one true God who can do all this! You knew that all the things you were doing were in rebellion to me." I think these people would blink, blink again and say, "What in the world are you talking about?"
The facts are that there's just a lot of people who don't even have reason to start thinking through these kinds of issues. Good people with good hearts who either don't know how to think about these things or don't see the slightest reason in the world to do so. Yeah, they're sinners. Yeah, they're guilty, but I really feel we are approaching this issue of condemning ALL these people to hell--remember, the mentally retarded, the mentally challenged, and those under the so-called age of accountability come to play here also--without OUR having given this the thought God would like us to. It's just not as simple as pointing to Romans 1 and saying, "Sorry, off to hell with EVERYONE if they haven't figured it all out."
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/27/2005 7:22 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom: .5 is fine. What Sahid claimed is that ALL indeterminate events by definition have a probability of .5 of occurring; thus, none are objectively ‘probable’ (probability of greater than .5 and less than 1) or objectively ‘improbable’ (probability of less than .5 and greater than 0). It’s this denial of the ‘probable’ and ‘improbable’ that I was addressing.
Zach: That is not what I claimed.
Tom: That’s how I read you. That’s kinda how I still read that post. But you get to interpret you. So. my bad. Sorry.
------------------
Zach: I claim that all freely willed choices must be choices from two or more possible options.
Tom: Libertarian choices, yeah, for sure.
------------------
Zach: There are two choices and there is no way to set the odds, so the best we can do is leave it at the default. Since future free decisions leave everyone ignorant as to what will be chosen, no one has the perspective needed to give odds.
Tom: See, now I’m hearing you deny the objectively improbable and objectively probable again. If all you mean to say is WE as ignorant observers can’t always make the judgment of what is or isn’t probable, fine. But since we were only discussing God’s knowledge of the probabilities, I couldn’t help understand your comments as inclusive of God. If you do mean to include God, then we DO disagree. Assuming the objectively probable and improbable exist, and assuming God is omniscient, then God knows when a future free act is more likely (probable) to occur or less likely (improbable) to occur.
--------------------------
Zach: You could look back at past free choices, do some math, and say that you have calculated what the (then unknown) probabilities where at the time based on what actually happened. But in doing so you would be denying that the choices were in fact free.
Tom: If this is so, Zach, then how are you not denying that “probable” and “improbable” are objective features of the real world? Sounds like you’re saying that if I am able to determine that some event that occurred (some indeterminate event) was, say, ‘very likely’ or ‘probable’ to occur, this would show the event was in fact not indeterminate at all. How is this not a denial of the objectively probable and improbable?
---------------------------
Zach: I can calculate the odds on an unbalanced die, by this method, because there is no freedom involved. But if the die (or human) is free, we must admit that it just as easily could have been completely different.
Tom: OF COURSE it could have been different. That’s the case with indeterminate events. If the entire history of the world were repeated up to the time of the event, the indeterminate event which did occur might not occur and something other might occur. Why that’s entailed in the very meaning of ‘indeterminate’ or ‘libertarian’. But this doesn’t destroy objective probabilities of greater or less than .5 if the probability be known by us or an omniscient God. An indeterminate event that had a probability of, say, .95 of occurring (that is, extremely likely to occur but still indeterminate) could, if its entire history were repeated, not occur. The .05 could win the day. That’s precisely what it means when the improbable occurs and it’s the only reason an omniscient God would have for ever being surprised when something happens which he did not expect.
--------------------------------
Tom: Also, Sahid and Laika, I never said or supposed that you in fact enjoy the idea of people being in hell.
Zach: Where did I ever get that idea?
Tom: Perhaps you were overly sensitive. Perhaps God’s speaking to you. I don’t know. But since you get to interpret Zach, I get to interpret Tom, if that’s OK with you.
Zach: I don't know what I (or Laika) wrote to make it seem like I feel good about hell.
Tom: Since I didn’t suppose you actually felt good about hell, I don’t suppose you or Laika said anything that made it seem so.
I tried to be honest about my own history and about how I felt about the notion of universalism and how it ticked me off, though I was quite unaware of this. It wasn’t that I enjoyed the idea of people in hell. It drove me to become a missionary and live in the armpit of the Middle East where I’ve been for more than half my life and where I’ve raised my kids. What I discovered that bother me was the idea that people in hell might all be able to escape it and enter heaven after spending their whole lives rejecting the truth. If that’s the case, then what the hell was I doing going through so much to live in and raise my family over seas? I thought that was unfair. The idea that they’d make it to heaven in the end angered me.
If I’m the only person to have ever reacted to universalism this way, hey, then it’s just me. I honestly think there are a LOT of Christians who believe in eternal conscious torment who feel, even if it’s unconsciously, the way I did. Forgive me for sharing my story in the assumption that you and Laika might possibly be in that category. I had no real right to assume it. I think I was assuming it not because of any explicit statement you made about wanting people in hell, but perhaps because of the absence of any explicit expression of angst over the issue.
My bad. My bad. My bad guys. Forgive me for projecting my own personal history onto you and Laika. I apologize.
-----------------------
Tom: As much as I love truth, that's one truth I'd weep my way into, kicking and screaming. Guess I wish we were more tearful and less satisfied in being right.
Zach: I'm glad to hear that you know the number of tears I've shed and for what reasons. Can you guess my weight too?
Tom: Now don’t get ugly Zach. I made it clear that all I was going on was what your actually posted (your comments on this board, this discussion). If you’re agonizing in prayer over hell hours each day, I'm happy and challenged. So let some of it out on the board. Encourage us. Challenge us. I don’t know. As it is, I don’t see it in your arguments. I’ve apologized for thinking it might not be there at all, but I’m not apologizing for not seeing it in your arguments.
------------------------
Zach: I would love to have a discussion about how a free event can be controlled by probability.
Tom: Who in the friggin world believes THAT?
------------------------
Zach: …when a person's views are written off by their supposed impure motivations…
Tom: I didn’t write off your views. I may in fact find the biblical evidence for eternal conscious torment convincing and embrace it (again). But I never said you were wrong. I only said I wished I saw some more angst IN THE FRIGGIN POSTS. That’s all.
Guess I’m not the only one who makes assumptions about other people. Glad to have your company now.
----------------------------
Zach: This is a forum devoted to open theism. Of all places this should be one where we don't accuse each other of "just wanting to be right."
Tom: I didn’t “accuse” you of “just wanting to be right.” I presumed that since I’m an average sort of Christian who struggles with the temptation to get life from being right, perhaps there are others who struggle with it. Perhaps some of those might be on this board. Perhaps some might be in this thread. Perhaps Zach and Laika might struggle with the same sort of thing I and lots of other Christians did and do. I’m honestly happy to know you don't. Hope I can get there some day.
Again, Zach and Laika, I sincerely apologize for projecting my own past onto you two. Shouldn’t have done it. Whatever my reasons might have been, it didn’t work. Sorry.
Peace,
Tom
"doGfood itself is good" SahidPost Edited (TGB) : 7/27/2005 10:27:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/27/2005 10:49 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Starkman,
Okay, this is something I have apparently not made as clear to you as I should have. It is definitely NOT my view that anyone will ever be condemned to hell on account of their own (unwillful) IGNORANCE. In my view, unwillful ignorance of the Gospel, being unblameworthy, condemns NO ONE to Hell.
I honestly can't even begin to fathom what would have given you the impression that I thought God condemns anyone to hell for ignorance. I have repeatedly plainly stated that ignorance sends NO ONE to hell--willful rejection of what they KNOW to be right is what merits condemnation.
about your ridiculous claim that somehow I want to condemn people to hell--I am completely aware of the fact (as should you) that it is not and will not ultimately be ME or anyone but GOD who will be doing the judging or condemning, Stark. My view simply refers to God's own self-revelation in The scriptures as the Judge of all. Why do you feel the need to make it out as if I prefer or somehow RELISH the idea of Hell? What's up with that?
Why do universalists always try to say this sort of ridiculous nonsense about believers in the traditional view of Hell?
Man, I knew I didn't want to get into this discussion again. I'm sorry I did.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 7/28/2005 12:55:09 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/28/2005 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | John...JOOOOOOOOOHN!
Dude, I NEVER meant to imply, at all, that you want to condemn anyone to hell. Not at all, and I'm VERY sorry if that's how it sounded. Really. I don't have time at the moment to go back and re-read my post and see where that came through (this darned "I have to get ready for work" thing, you know!).
Please, John, know that I didn't mean to insinuate that at all.
Finally, I'm not a universalist. What I am is very unsure about the gray areas that I believe exist. I can logically and philosophically see where Meph's gotten to, but, like, say, Tom, I've got scripture yet to deal with.
Anyway, peace out, in, sideways and up!
Take care (you blasted, no-good for nothing, heretic!!!)
Love ya, man!
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 | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/28/2005 6:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, repeat after me: PoW, Pow, PoW...POW, POW, POW...
"Theyrrrrrrrrrrrrrre baaaaaaaaaaaack!"
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 7/28/2005 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Yo.
Since there's a significant amount of people here concerned about scriptURE and thangs, how about we take your exegetical prowess over to the "Exegetes, HO!" thread. I'd love to see how many ECPs and annihilationists we have...and how they biblically justify their beliefs.
Absolutely can't wait.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
| 106 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:40 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 |
|
|