 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Response to Empiress on Free Will | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/21/2002 5:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | Empiress:
But I think saying "well, it could be worse" is a cop out!
When someone comes to me on the verge of suicide having had a lifetime of pain and abuse, I can't very well say, "well, it could be worse, get over it."
Likewise, as we struggle with the depth of evil and look straight into the heart of darkness, I don't see how "it could be worse" is a tenable or helpful response.
Iconoclast:
Good point. I guess I said that wrong. It certainly isn't good advice to suggest that argument would be helpful to someone in pain. Perhaps the only thing that is really helpful in that situation is to actually see and experience God much like Job ultimately did. Is this what you mean by approaching this supra-rationally? It has to be an actual experience?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/21/2002 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast,
I just wanted to say, I'm always impressed by people when they see another's point of view and simply acknowledge it as you just did....that's very cool. 
And I do think experience is at least a part of approaching the issue supra-rationally, yes. And Job's experience is one such example...a "mystical" encounter with God. Great point!
Thanks,
Empiress
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/21/2002 6:56 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW said: I really, really don't thing that any heart that could hate CAN have a free, "natural will." Rather, it will be "deliberative."
The problem is in what the nature of a creature is. God by his word gives everyting a nature. Even after the fall, the nature of it all remains. The rules don't change. But things or people either act based on their god-given natures, or they don't. (Here is where Calvin actually is quite good, and especially Abraham Kuyper!)
Semeia: Starting when my oldest daughter was around nine months old, every time she didn't get what she wanted she would slam herself face first into the floor. If she was on the carpeting and we didn't make enough of a fuss (we were trying different things to discourage her, at one point we tried ignoring it, thinking it would be a self-correcting behavior--it wasn't), she would crawl over and slam her head into the wood floor. For about a year and a half she went around with a bruise in the middle of her forehead because she did this so often. When she was born she came out angry. I don't know how else to describe it. She didn't like being held close; she would almost throw herself backwards out of our arms. My husband and I built up great arm muscles because the way she preferred to be carried was held out with her face away from one's body. She is still a VERY intense child.
My question to you is: was she just born full of sin? Do babies and toddlers not act on their "God-given natures"? Why wouldn't they? Are you saying babies are sinful? Or "deliberative", as opposed to "natural"?
PoW said: A person can will good things all he wants, but unless his heart or subconscious is purified by the grace or glory of God, his works are of no avail and he is still a captive to demonic influences. Willful good works which are not products of a heart being purified by divine grace are not only not meritorious, but, much worse, they are satanic. Good works produced by a filthy sub-conscious and a rationalistic self-justifying self-assertiveness can be nothing else.
Semeia: It's hard for me to see how my daughter slamming her face into the floor because I wouldn't let her suck on a marble or eat a piece of paper or write all over the wall with a crayon could be a sign of a heart "purified by the grace or glory of God." So by your definition it seems that I must view her as Satanic. I reject that view completely.
And I guess anyone who feeds the poor but who has "the wrong attitude" while doing so is satanic. That seems illogical to me.
I guess I am as far away from being a Calvinist as you can get without being an atheist. What you say here is completely foreign and just doesn't make sense to me. If I am hearing you right, it seems like a puritanical view of human nature which is ultimately misanthropic. It says that God loves who we could be, not who we actually are. And yet God has told me that he loves me deeply exactly how I am, with all my sin and failure and impure heart and filthy sub-conscious. He's not waiting for my purity to reveal itself. He loves my broken self. And any progress I make in this life, any sins that I manage to overcome, however few or many, he will love me every step of the way. And all he really asks of me is to love him back, and to love my brother.
I guess I'm different from a lot of Christians because I emphatically do not believe that God is after perfection. I think he's after love, which is almost the opposite of what we think of as perfection. I think when Jesus says, "Be perfect, as my father in heaven is perfect," he is telling us how to love people in all their imperfection. Just before this he says: "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous..."
I believe that what we think of as perfection and what God thinks of as perfection are two different things. We think that perfection has to do with good and evil. God thinks perfection has to do with love. "Be perfect as my Father in heaven is perfect" and love both the just and the unjust. Being perfect is not to judge ourselves or others, but to love.
In friendly disagreement,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/21/2002 7:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia, I pretty much agree with your last two paragraphs.
But the degree to which you butchered what I was saying by forcing them into contexts where they did not fit was incredable. I could not have imagined it.
Go back and read what I REALLY wrote.
=============
p.s. I do not follow the ussual "calvinst" line about kids being born with sin. But YOU seemed to have in at least one post today. Also, since you used the word "nature" I'll comment on how bad the NIV is in phrasing "sinful nature." "Nature" by definition is Good. Even Calvinists, with their Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration model (which you don't know about) are WAY aways from what you were characaturing.
Your not-so-disagreeable, and not so disagreeing friend,
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/21/2002 7:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia wrote:
quote:
PoW said: I really, really don't thing that any heart that could hate CAN have a free, "natural will." Rather, it will be "deliberative."
The problem is in what the nature of a creature is. God by his word gives everyting a nature. Even after the fall, the nature of it all remains. The rules don't change. But things or people either act based on their god-given natures, or they don't. (Here is where Calvin actually is quite good, and especially Abraham Kuyper!)
Semeia: Starting when my oldest daughter was around nine months old, every time she didn't get what she wanted she would slam herself face first into the floor. If she was on the carpeting and we didn't make enough of a fuss (we were trying different things to discourage her, at one point we tried ignoring it, thinking it would be a self-correcting behavior--it wasn't), she would crawl over and slam her head into the wood floor. For about a year and a half she went around with a bruise in the middle of her forehead because she did this so often. When she was born she came out angry. I don't know how else to describe it. She didn't like being held close; she would almost throw herself backwards out of our arms. My husband and I built up great arm muscles because the way she preferred to be carried was held out with her face away from one's body. She is still a VERY intense child.
My question to you is: was she just born full of sin? Do babies and toddlers not act on their "God-given natures"? Why wouldn't they? Are you saying babies are sinful? Or "deliberative", as opposed to "natural"?
Semeia, for you to actually apply what I said that way, you have to be suggesting (to keep the parallels straight) that your infant daughter did all this out of hate.
NO WAY. That is NOT what you are suggesting.
It is a very poor treatment of what I had written.
As I asked above. Please go back and read carefully. And let it sit before you launch paragraphs into cyber-space. Thanks.
Trashed Pot | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/21/2002 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW, I certainly didn't mean to "trash" you! But I guess I really don't understand what you're saying. As soon as my daughter learned the word "hate" she used it quite frequently. She was frustrated and angry and when she was bonking her brother over the head with a toy truck she seemed pretty "hateful". If this doesn't apply to children, when does it apply? Age ten, fifteen, twenty? I truly don't understand. My children have shown a lot of what appears to be "hate" at an early age. I'm thinking that when they are body slamming each other into the ground to get a toy back, it's not out of love. So when does the hate that you're talking about become real?
Pow said: p.s. I do not follow the ussual "calvinst" line about kids being born with sin. But YOU seemed to have in at least one post today.
Semeia: If you are referring to the other thread where I ask, "Rb, who sinned, a gay person or his parents, that he was born gay?" I was paraphrasing John 9, and clearly Jesus' answer to a similar question shows that neither sinned. That was my point, which I didn't come back to--although I suspected people would know where I was going with that. But you're right, I never came back and clarified, so I guess that could leave the wrong impression.
I'm not trying to caricature anything--I promise!!! I guess I just really don't understand your point of view here. I don't think I will be able to figure it out by rereading your post, though, because I think I read it carefully to begin with. After seeing where I went with it, could you explain it more to clear up the misunderstanding?
Can pots be glued?
Confused and sleepy,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 1/21/2002 8:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks to all of you...great, great stuff...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/22/2002 1:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, Semeia, pots can be glued.
As to: Pow said: p.s. I do not follow the ussual "calvinst" line about kids being born with sin. But YOU seemed to have in at least one post today.
By that I was refering to what you wrote that I only half read, and ASSUMED that I knew the rest. You were refering to the fact that I too ahd taken care of young kids on a daily basis. I read in what I assumed that you were writing. but I still presume that you refered to some of the worst moments. -- the kinds that parents gripe about. (If not...sorry.)
I will have to take this page and start over later.gotta make breakfast.
But, in short:
1. Salvation is not an imaginary idea in God's head. It is not just God forgetting something. Sin leads to death--real death. And people need saving from that death. Real saving. doing more sin brings with it more death. And I'm talking about within the person; not just other people on the highway.
2. Bonhoeffer's "as if there is no God" is beginning to show up in what you write.
3. Check our the image and likeness" passage in the bible. Then go back and read what I wrote, just about that (which isn't guaranteed to be in one place above).
4, If I am really good, I won't be back till next weekend.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/22/2002 1:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia. Would thisLINK help?
It is very well organized.
Your friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/22/2002 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW said: 1. Salvation is not an imaginary idea in God's head. It is not just God forgetting something. Sin leads to death--real death. And people need saving from that death. Real saving. doing more sin brings with it more death. And I'm talking about within the person; not just other people on the highway.
Semeia: Am I saying anything about not needing salvation? If that's what you heard then I said it wrong. But I've never met a single person who was even close to perfect, or who had any kind of purity of heart, even at the end of their life. So all that stuff you said about purity I'm going to seriously mismatch with.
PoW said: 2. Bonhoeffer's "as if there is no God" is beginning to show up in what you write.
Semeia: This is an accusation with no evidence to back it up. You have attributed this idea to Bonhoeffer before, I questioned you, and all you came up with is that someone else said this about him. I have read quite a bit of Bonhoeffer and I can't even imagine what you are referring to. Have you read Ethics, or Creation and Fall, or Christ the Center? Christ is at the center of almost everything he writes. If you are going to make this attribution about his work, please back it up with some evidence from his work.
What specifically are you talking about in my writing?
PoW said: 3. Check our the image and likeness" passage in the bible. Then go back and read what I wrote, just about that (which isn't guaranteed to be in one place above).
Semeia: I'm sorry PoW, but you're going to have to connect the dots for me. I don't understand what you're saying. Consider me a bit slow.
PoW said: 4, If I am really good, I won't be back till next weekend.
Semeia: There's got to be a twelve step program for this somewhere...
By the way, if anyone else out there can see where PoW and I are missing each other and can explain it to me, I'm listening.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/22/2002 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Some questions on free will.
Many people want to say that God is not morally free to NOT love Creation. His love is basically an emanation of his necessary nature. (Doc would call this a "perfection") Essentially, this means that God's love is NOT moral, in the sense of existential choice. But these same people would have us to believe that God views his love and benevolence for us as GENUINE. In the open view, it is said that genuine love NECESSITATES libertarian free will, meaning that God couldn't just create human beings who would do nothing but love him...because it supposedly wouldn't be genuine. Moreover, it is said that, in heaven, genuine human capacity to do evil will all but disappear when the Consummation of All Things happens.
If the essential instance of love is not morally free (ie God's) but IS seen as "genuine", why couldn't God create human beings without moral freedom and YET consider that love as being "genuine?" Why must non-divine "love" include the possibility of doing evil to be considered "genuine"?
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/22/2002 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: quote:
If the essential instance of love is not morally free (ie God's) but IS seen as "genuine", why couldn't God create human beings without moral freedom and YET consider that love as being "genuine?" Why must non-divine "love" include the possibility of doing evil to be considered "genuine"?
Assuming arguendo that God is ontologically omnibenevolent (as opposed to omnibenevolent by choice), and that God is in fact unable to be evil, I fail to see why a distinction cannot be made between this “natural goodness” and the “forced goodness” that would describe a humanity without the freedom to do evil. In my opinion, as long as love is not forced by the person receiving it, it can be genuine. Obviously, no one is forcing God to be omnibenevolent; he is not a contingent being. Is this not an effective distinction?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/22/2002 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Brett:
quote:
In my opinion, as long as love is not forced by the person receiving it, it can be genuine. Obviously, no one is forcing God to be omnibenevolent; he is not a contingent being. Is this not an effective distinction?
Not really. The main line of similiarity that I'm raising is the LACK of moral choice due to the CONSTITUTION of a being. If this is the way we take the discussion, then there would essentially be no distinction between the love of God and the love of humanity because BOTH parties love others as more of an EMANATION of their natures than as existentially relevant choices.
Next, let's deal with the word usage. "Forced" This word is QUITE loaded with connotation. When one uses it, it implies tyranny, oppression, etc. This is too loaded a word to use in this. One gets the mental idea of someone using pressure to make them do something AGAINST THEIR WILL. And this is not the situation. The situation is that God would create non-divine sentient beings such that they would only promote goodness and love, including love of God. This would be a CONSTITUTION, not "forcing" Because God is the definer of reality, if God were to have created non-divine sentient being in this manner, then THEY would possess "natural goodness", too.
Let me make a note here. I think that this is why so many OT people use harsh rhetoric with loaded words to give a sense of depersonalization to this idea. "Well, God didn't want robots" BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. It's all rhetoric. Cause these SAME people will want to argue how God's goodness does NOT operate like a mechanical Pez dispenser to all people...when it's ESSENTIALLY the same animal! LOL!
So, again, I think that MAIN idea is that if we are going to accept (as GENUINE) "loving" activity from a being who is constitutionally uncapable of moral freedom, then there is NO reason why God couldn't have made us that way.
See what I'm saying?
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/22/2002 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi said: So, again, I think that MAIN idea is that if we are going to accept (as GENUINE) "loving" activity from a being who is constitutionally uncapable of moral freedom, then there is NO reason why God couldn't have made us that way.
Semeia: I hope I'm not contradicting something I've said before, but if I am, I must have just changed my mind (). That said, I think that God IS constitutionally capable of moral freedom, and I think God COULD choose to hate if he wished, and that nonetheless he chooses love and I trust that he's going to choose love. I think his love is genuine partly because he chooses to love over not loving.
I don't like all the omnis. I don't think I need to see God as omni-anything in order to worship him. I worship him because he is the Creator who made me and everything I love, and he sent his Son down to die that we might be saved.
I think free will is necessary for love--both on the part of the creature and the part of the Creator.
So I'm thinking everyone's going to let me know right away that I'm a heretic.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 1/22/2002 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia says:quote:
I don't like all the omnis. I don't think I need to see God as omni-anything in order to worship him. I worship him because he is the Creator who made me and everything I love, and he sent his Son down to die that we might be saved.
Mephi,
Maybe you have a convert?
peace and love, don
A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? " | | Back to Top | | |
|
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 1/22/2002 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia:
quote:
I think that God IS constitutionally capable of moral freedom, and I think God COULD choose to hate if he wished
Do you think it is possible can have free will and never choose evil?
If God has free will, and never chooses good, why did he not create us with the same capacity?
To do so would have been a choice of love and caring, and not denied our free will. Why didn't he?
God must be... not all-knowing, not all-powerful (therefore there must be more than one god), or he created us with the capacity for evil, so that he could watch us tear ourselves apart, and see who was strongest? (my, he sounds like Odin now!)
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 1/22/2002 9:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
So, again, I think that MAIN idea is that if we are going to accept (as GENUINE) "loving" activity from a being who is constitutionally uncapable of moral freedom, then there is NO reason why God couldn't have made us that way.
Wow, this is the same argument, but where God does _not_ have free will!
It seems from these that whether or not God has free will, there is no excuse for _us_ having the capicity to accept evil.
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/22/2002 9:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Vexen said:
quote:
It seems from these that whether or not God has free will, there is no excuse for _us_ having the capicity to accept evil.
One would have to argue that there was some type of ONTOLOGICAL reason that such was the case. That one could argue that it could be no other way than that human beings HAD to have the capacity to accept evil. What I think Doc would argue is that God, being a NECESSARY being, is NECESSARILY what He is...including his "character." Because non-divine beings are CONTINGENT...meaning that they can be OTHER than what they are...almost BY DEFINITION, we have to say that it is possible for contingent beings to be other than "good"...which implies moral freedom that is inherent. The argument is basically that freedom to be otherwise is INHERENT in what it means to be a contingent being. In the case of morality, it would be the freedom to be other than good.
Unfortunately, this ONLY works if one ASSUMES that MORAL CHARACTER is what is to be considered as being qualities of a necessary or contingent being. But, if you, like me, say that it is not moral character that is to be considered as a quality, but CAPACITY for morality...then the whole thing falls apart. Why? Because when we talk about capacity, a necessary being would be on the SAME GROUND as a contingent being. It would be like this. Instead of me saying:
God is a necessary being. Therefore his qualities are unchangable. If God is good, then he is unchangeably good. He cannot be otherwise.
...I would say...
God is a necessary being. Therefore his qualities are unchangeable. If God is a MORALLY FREE BEING (having the capacity for moral choice), then he is unchangeably so. He cannot be otherwise.
All my statement is saying is that IF (the operative word) God is morally free, then given his necessary nature, he CANNOT be otherwise. Nothing wrong with that. It works wonderfully without the moral baggage. And to be honest, I think that it actually works out better this way. Especially when we take the thought to CONTINGENT beings. Watch THIS!
What Doc would say:
Human beings are contingent beings. Therefore their qualities are changable. If a human being is "good", he can CHANGE from good to bad. He CAN be other than good.
and MY statement...
Human beings are contingent beings. Therefore their qualities are changable. If a human being is a morally free being, then he CAN be changed from having moral freedom to a state of NOT having moral freedom. He can be OTHER THAN morally free.
Now what have I said? That human beings are NOT unchangeably free. Their moral freedoms CAN INDEED be constrained to the point of compatibilism. Now, what's the rub? Neither Doc nor any other open view theist can deny this! Doc readily says that compabilistic freedom is WITHIN the scope of the fundamental assumptions of open view theism. Therefore we know that the moral freedom of non-divine beings indeed CAN be negated!
I contend that my view on the "necessary vs. contingent" idea is more workable and can affirm God's freedom on one hand...while also affirming his NECESSARY, UNCHANGABLE nature on the other. Isn't theology cool?
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/22/2002 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Vexen said:
Do you think it is possible can have free will and never choose evil?
Semeia: You left out a word here. Are you asking is it possible that God can have free will and never choose evil?
If so, my answer is yes.
Vexen said:
If God has free will, and never chooses good, why did he not create us with the same capacity?
To do so would have been a choice of love and caring, and not denied our free will. Why didn't he?
Semeia: Did you mean to ask if God has free will, and never chooses EVIL, why did he not create us with the same capacity?
If so, my answer is that he did create us with the CAPACITY to never choose evil, but the capacity involves submitting ourselves completely to him, which human beings find very difficult to do. To the extent that we are able to do so, we are able to resist choosing evil. By the way, I do not believe that sin and evil are the same thing, but that is another discussion.
Vexen said:
God must be... not all-knowing, not all-powerful (therefore there must be more than one god), or he created us with the capacity for evil, so that he could watch us tear ourselves apart, and see who was strongest? (my, he sounds like Odin now!)
Semeia: I don't follow you here. Why would there need to be more than one God if God was not OMNI everything? The OMNI words don't appear in the Bible, and yet there is no question in scripture about there being only one God.
And what if the capacity for evil is essential for there to be free-willed living beings?
Couldn't God decide that the risk is worth it simply because life and love are worth it? Why in the world would that suggest a God who takes pleasure in evil? The Bible depicts a God who grieves and suffers over the evil in the world.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/22/2002 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Another important note. This is where the coveted "God is love" thing comes in. Some people want to make this an ontological principle, such that instead of meaning "God is loving", it means that God IS love such that the very CORE of God is unquestionably love. This is the premise, I believe, that shifts the primarily ONTOLOGICAL discussion into the MORAL realm. By taking the moral category "love" and making it an ontological category of God, the "necessary/contingent" argument spelled out about is used. Now, here's what I find interesting. Many people keep trying to tell us that the Hebrew mind was NOT philosophical oriented like the Greeks. They did not think in these type of abstract ways. They thought in more PERSONAL terms. The "eastern" way of thinking, right? Well, wouldn't this back the idea that MAYBE the 1 John passage wasn't MEANT to be some philosophical assumption taking to the ontology of God? Could POW be right in that the "God is love" passage was NOT meant to describe God in his essence, but God's energies AS WERE PERCEIVED BY HIS PEOPLE? Hmmm... If so, then I see no reason to use the 1 John "God is love" passage in the axiomatic manner in which many open view theists do. Note well that this does NOT deny that God is loving. It denies the highly philosophical way in which many theologians attempt to use the idea of "God is love"
Just a thought.
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/22/2002 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/22/2002 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph:
quote:
The main line of similiarity that I'm raising is the LACK of moral choice due to the CONSTITUTION of a being. If this is the way we take the discussion, then there would essentially be no distinction between the love of God and the love of humanity because BOTH parties love others as more of an EMANATION of their natures than as existentially relevant choices.
There is a huge difference between the “constitution/nature” of a CONTINGENT being and the “constitution/nature” of the ORIGINAL being. The contingent being is GIVEN his nature and therefore the scope of “emanation” from that nature is predetermined.
Again, I return to my previous statement: As long as love is not forced (“created,” “predetermined,” whatever less “connotative” word you want to use) by the PERSON RECEIVING IT, it can be genuine. God’s love can be genuine even though it is ontological because we, the RECIPIENTS, have not predisposed him to be that way. This is the crucial difference between our nature and God’s nature. Our nature is not original; it is contingent, created, predisposed. So whatever could “emanate” from our nature was decided by God. God's nature was decided by no one (and certainly not us).
Semeia:
quote:
I think that God IS constitutionally capable of moral freedom, and I think God COULD choose to hate if he wished, and that nonetheless he chooses love and I trust that he's going to choose love. I think his love is genuine partly because he chooses to love over not loving.
I don't like all the omnis.
By the way, I want to point out again that I am assuming arguendo that God is ontologically omnibenevolent and not omnibenevolent by choice. At this point, I’m not sure which version of omnibenevolence makes more sense to me. But, Semeia, I don’t think it is necessary to reject all the “omnis” just because one doesn't believe in ontological omnibenevolence. In my opinion, a God who chooses to be omnibenevolent is just as omnibenevolent as one who can be no other way. Just a thought.
Okay, I definitely need to get something DONE today. . .
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/22/2002 10:22 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS
quote:
There is a huge difference between the “constitution/nature” of a CONTINGENT being and the “constitution/nature” of the ORIGINAL being. The contingent being is GIVEN his nature and therefore the scope of “emanation” from that nature is predetermined.
Again, I return to my previous statement: As long as love is not forced (“created,” “predetermined,” whatever less “connotative” word you want to use) by the PERSON RECEIVING IT, it can be genuine. God’s love can be genuine even though it is ontological because we, the RECIPIENTS, have not predisposed him to be that way. This is the crucial difference between our nature and God’s nature. Our nature is not original; it is contingent, created, predisposed. So whatever could “emanate” from our nature was decided by God. God's nature was decided by no one (and certainly not us).
You do realize that your argumentation is proceeding from the ASSUMPTION that "genuine" love necessitates libertarian freedom. Every bit of it. Can you validate your use of this presupposition?
MOREOVER, it would seem that the more reasonable presupposition to use IN that case would be this one...
Love MUST be chosen, meaning that the act and emotionality of love MUST NOT DETERMINISTICALLY EXIST. There must be a true choice involved.
See, the assumption that "genuine love necessitates libertarian freedom" has the CORROLARY assumption that love CANNOT exist where DETERMINISM OF MORAL CHARACTER exists! You can't have one without the other. And this is what I try to bring out. You cannot on one hand say that genuine love necessitates libertarian freedom...and THEN say that God (whose love is DETERMINISTICALLY LINKED to his "essence") exhibits genuine love. See what I'm saying? Can't have the cake and eat it too...
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - mephi2K on 01/22/2002 3:28:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Vexen
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 55
| Posted 1/22/2002 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm temporarily ignoring a few posts, and am restating both my posts in a single post, clearing up the few confusing spelling/word mistakes I made!
If God has no Free Will:
If love is valid and acceptible from a worthy god that has no free will to choose between good or evil
then
God could have created us the same way. Where our love and worth is valid, despite their not being the existence of evil or free will.
If God has Free Will:
But never chooses evil, out of choice, and still has free will
then
God could have created us with the same quality. That by choice, we never choose evil, but we still have free will.
So, if God has no free will, there is no need for the existence of evil. Therefore, God created evil for other reasons, and is specifically immoral for causing all suffering.
If God has free will, then God is immoral for not granting us the same ability to have free will and not choose evil. Or God does choose evil, and such events as volcanoes, earthquakes, the suffering of children, are God's choices, and he is immoral as he is also omniscient.
Either way... Do Not Worship The Dog! God is immoral, or does not exist, or is not all-knowing.
Umm... I encountered an embarrasing problems whilst reading some of your posts, I didn't know something! What is a contingent being, looking "contingent" up in a dictionary just made me more confused!
BJS
quote:
As long as love is not forced (“created,” “predetermined,”[...]) by the PERSON RECEIVING IT, it can be genuine.
...
This is the crucial difference between our nature and God’s nature. Our nature is not original; it is contingent, created, predisposed. So whatever could “emanate” from our nature was decided by God.
I think the argument results from your last statement "whatever could emanate from our nature was decided by God". If God loves us due to his nature as the original being, out of his nature, and we can accept it, and this love is valid then;
Why can God not accept our love under the same conditions?
--
Vexen
http://www.vexen.co.uk | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/22/2002 11:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Vexen:
quote:
Why can God not accept our love under the same conditions?
Ahhhhhhhhhhh. Mephi, Vexen, et al., unfortunately, I must adjourn from this conversation until at least tonight. The stack of documents on my desk is glaring at me. Vexen, my necessarily short answer to your above question is that it would not be "the same conditions." I'll have to give you a real explanation later. Sorry.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
| 167 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:09 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 |
|
|