 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Response to Empiress on Free Will | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/22/2002 12:13 PM (GMT -6) |   | Semeia, I'll get back to you. (Sorry.)
Vexen, I should introduce myself. I'm not a philosopher, and don't ply the craft well. I strive for literacy though. And so, I come to this discussion feeling that I know a few things that were long-crafted into knowledge, which I know better than some other things. And so I trust them accordingly more. (I'm an artist--and that is how artists work--make studies, take risks, and then test them.) So I wish to say up front that I step off of Meph's train at one point. But before that junction I applaud loudly! "Way to go Meph!!!"
Here is one fairly recent comment of yours--which I've edited to make my own: "God could have created us with the same quality. That by choice, we never choose evil, but we still have free will." Working from the Eastern Orthodox opinions that I read and posted, I say that I agree with this. EXCEPT FOR ONE WORD. That word that I would change is "could"; and it should read "did." I think that is is perfectly correct to say that God created us with the "quality" that by choice we (could) (have) n(ot) (ever) choose(n) evil, but still have free will. That is what the Eastern Orthodox maintain. If nothing else, it is a true that this is their position, historically and contemporaneously.
Let me clean that up: I think that is is perfectly correct to say that God created us with the "quality" that by choice we could have not ever choosen evil, but still have free will.
It sounded to me like that differs from both Vexen's position and Meph's position. (It would be fun to hear a corrective if I am wrong about that.)
The point of departure, of what I am saying (I'm not much of an authority) the Orthodox position is, from what Meph says the OT position is (And I'm assuming the "classical too"?) is found in this statement of Meph's. (Which set Doc apart from Orthodoxy. And maybe put him in the same boat with a part of the Western tradition that he wished to fix...)
quote:
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")
A trustworthy representative of the EO voice would say these:
quote:
In "Epistle CCXXXIV", a classic apophatic statement, Basil the Great says:
"But we say that we know our God from His operations,
But do not undertake to approach near to His essence.
His operations come down to us,
But His essence remains beyond our reach."
The texts below are by Christos Yannaras (a contemporary Greek scholar and university professor in Athens, Greece:
"If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it."
"being stems not from the essence, which would make it an ontological necessity, but from the person and the freedom of its love which 'hypostasizes' being into a personal and trinitarian communion..."
The impact of what he writes is seen in:
If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it. Evaluative categories could refer only to nature or essence, but then personal distinctiveness would be subordinated to the necessity imposed by natural definitions, and consequently, once again, it would be non-existant or substantially curtailed.. In that case, the person of God would "undergo" whatever happened to the nature.
In what Meph says of OT (and true of "classical too) the direction-of-flow is from essence to person. The EO posits that flow from Person/hypostasis to Essence. And, as Zizioulas says, "Communion is an ontological category." The Father loves the Son, and the Spirit. It is the Father, in Christianity, that is the source of the oneness of the Godhead. God does love. That settles everything.
Back to US. God created us with a particular nature. I see the phrase "free will" used with great popularity here. But "nature" isn't as common. As John of Damascus says, "natural will" is free (not enslaved), while "deliberative will" (should I, shouldn't I, can I do better, etc.) is enslaved and cannot fulfill its nature. We were created, historically, to be free in our natural will. And that natural will had great open vistas of potentialities, creativity, etc. Naming the animals is a good representation of that wide-openness. We had choice. We were free. We would have matured, and have been given immortality. But we rebelled, made ourselves god. That's us.
Christ assumed our humanity, and in so doing became what we are, so that we can, through him, become god -- become by grace through participation in Him what he is by nature. And in Him is our freedom. Restoration of free will comes only by the Spirit of Christ.
Meph: I LOVED this part!!!!!!:
quote:
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!
Semeia, I wish that you would take two steps back from, "I think God COULD choose to hate if he wished." That really castes God in human form, and fallen humanity at that. And so, it provides NO HELP in understanding what either unfallen humanity was like, nor perfected humanity in the eschaton. THAT perfected (deified) humanity is what interests me.
Semeia: I think his love is genuine partly because he chooses to love over not loving.
But friend, what can you say of the equally possible scenario of if we had never sinned. Would his love be un-genuine?
Vexen asked: Do you think it is possible can have free will and never choose evil?
As far as I can tell, the historic Christian answer is YES!!!!!!!!!
PotOnWheel
(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")
Edited by - potonwheel on 01/22/2002 9:16:00 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/22/2002 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi said in regards to "God is love" :
quote:
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? .
First, I, as well as most Christians in history, DO see the verse, "God is love" to be a statement of the nature of God, not due to Biblical exegesis, but due to personal experience. Scripture uncovers that which we know and experience to be true (but this gets into hermeneutics so I'd rather not get into that discussion as it is off topic).
Second, I think this approach is wrong. We've got ourselves tied up in knots trying to figure out that which we can't know through reason. I want to show through reason the nature of God and where rational discourse must end.
I want to begin the discussion using Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. Anselm posits that God is a being greater such that no greater being than God can be conceived. This is an important point to make because any attribute that humans have and hold to be good, we must believe that our Creator would have those same qualities to a perfect degree. Therefore, since we believe that humans have free will and the quality of love, God must have these qualities to a greater degree than human beings and these become necessary attributes of Divinity.
Now, when these qualities are projected on to God in a perfect manner, they appear to bring about a contradiction (as you point out). However, this is the point at which I say reason must end because here we are forced to either limit the attributes of God (to being more limited than our own) OR admit the limits of OUR own ability to comprehend that which exists in the spiritual realm (ie extra-dimensionally). This is where my example:
quote:
Given a two dimensional circle, two points exist separate from each other where point a = 1,3 and point b = 1,3 on the x-y axis. Now this appears contradictory because I said these points exist apart from each other but the coordinates show they occupy the same space. When we add a third dimension however, a z-axis, we see that point a = 1,3,3 and point b =1,3,-3 and realize that these points form the axis of a sphere!
is applicable.
This is also an example where we're NOT using the limits of reason to cover up sloppy or inconsistent theology, but rather using it to affirm that which seems to be true but is beyond our comprehension. (I think Doc agrees here??)
Also, my example of the photon being both a wave and a particle is applicable here. At times God seems to be completely free and at other times it appears that God is constrained to act according to the quality of love...but we can only see one at a time. We believe they both co-exist but can't, using purely reason, comprehend how that's possible because they seem to be mutually exclusive.
Since love is an innate and necessary attribute of God, "God is love" is an AMORAL statement. Love is not, by it's very nature, a MORAL quality. It only becomes a moral quality when we say that a being "should be loving." To say that I have brown hair is a non-moral quality I possess. To say that people SHOULD have brown hair, while related to the first statement, is to turn it into a moral statement. "God is love" is not a moral statement however, because it is describing one of God's intrinsic qualities (like saying God has brown hair).
Possessing the quality of innate love and free will are necessary characteristics of the Divine.
Okay...this is an argument against my own problems with God which I can't solve using logic!
Pax,
Empiress
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/22/2002 6:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Holy Toledo! Gone for two days and this conversation expands 6 pages!!!
I don't have time to read each post right now. I just perused them quickly and am tickled pink (whatever that means) with the depth of discussion.
May I just jump in on this last point?
It seems Empiress has a point that God's necessary love and highest freedom are in tension only if you think that the "freedom to do otherwise" (libertarian freedom) is the highest form of freedom. But why think that? Isn't the "freedom from" higher than "freedom to"? That is, might we not suppose (and do we not intuitively assume) that the freedom FROM the necessity of making choices between good and evil is higher than the freedom TO choose between good and evil? Isn't a person who has grown past the need to always choose (say) to be faithful to his wife FARTHER ALONG the path of freedom than the one who must continually choose this?
So, might not God be seen as the MOST free being precisely because he DOESN'T have to choose between good and evil? And will we not be MORE free in heaven when (presumably) we no longer have to choose the way we do now?
The difference between us and God, as I see it, is that there's no contradiction in supposing that a necessary being (God) possessed this freedom as an inherent attribute of his nature, while there is a contradiction in supposing that a contingent being (humans, spirits) could possess this as an inherent quality of their nature. As the early church fathers all seemed to understand (see Satan and the Problem of Evil), we must arrive at the higher freedom by choosing it with a lower freedom. We must go through this "probational epoch" to arrive at God-likeness -- viz. being defined by love, not just choosing it.
Left turn: Vexen inquired about natural evil and whether I think this is the result of non-human free agents. The answer is yes. This was the standard view in the early church, and I think it reasonable. It doesn't mean that ever "natural" disaster is directly demonically inspired. Only that nature (include the way the laws operate) are the result of their corrupting influence. The Genesis narrative assumes this (viz. thorns and death are the result of the fall), and the result of the Bible implies it (viz. Satan is "the lord of death" [Heb 2:14] -- which implies that our bodies weren't meant to decay as they now do.). Moreover, Jesus always treated deformities and diseases etc... as NOT what the Creator willed. Yet they are, on one level, very "natural" results of "natural" causes. Hence I believe that our "natural" is not God's "natural."
Great discussion!!!
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/22/2002 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Questions for Empiress:
1) You don't see any significant problems with the version of ontological argument that you are using? None at all? (Hint: SUBJECTIVITY!!!!!!)
2) Isn't it true that Anselm used his ontological argument to argue for God being TIMELESS and IMPASSIBLE...which are two things that are diametrically opposed to open view theism?
3)Wouldn't you say that "love" is INDEED a moral category in a way that you describe...especially when you want to argue that the greatest possible being SHOULD be "loving"? (A thought: perhaps I am confusing the term "moral" with "axiological". I am primarily dealing with the issue of WORTH and VALUE, though "oughts" are definitely involved. At present, I'll just continue to consider it a moral category.)
4) How does the statement "God is love" differ from "Love is God"?
Just some things here...
________________________________
Other things....
Doc JUST said (with my emphasis):
quote:
It seems Empiress has a point that God's necessary love and highest freedom are in tension only if you think that the "freedom to do otherwise" (libertarian freedom) is the highest form of freedom. But why think that? Isn't the "freedom from" higher than "freedom to"? That is, might we not suppose (and do we not intuitively assume) that the freedom FROM the necessity of making choices between good and evil is higher than the freedom TO choose between good and evil? Isn't a person who has grown past the need to always choose (say) to be faithful to his wife FARTHER ALONG the path of freedom than the one who must continually choose this?
On another post in the "Reason" thread, I said (addressed to Doc):
What I feel is REALLY interesting is that, when it comes down to it, your argumentation is the same all around. For free will. Warfare worldview. Everything. You even apply it to the Law of Non-Contradiction! Wow. Your line of thinking is this...
"Sure, we can accept THAT presupposition, but what's to stop us from accepting THIS one...especially when THIS one may give us more explanatory power for things later."
Really think about our interactions. This is what it's come down to the majority of the time.
Can I rest my case on this one?  If it just comes down to what suppositions we want to use for various ideas, then what? I just thought this was quite interesting.
Second, you say:
quote:
It seems Empiress has a point that God's necessary love and highest freedom are in tension only if you think that the "freedom to do otherwise" (libertarian freedom) is the highest form of freedom. But why think that? Isn't the "freedom from" higher than "freedom to"?
Huh? This seems like the prison guard who tries to console a prisoner by telling him about the "freedom" he has FROM all the existentially anxiety producing choices in the outside world. Because his choices are so limited by where he is, he actually has a higher freedom than he would if he were outside. Hmmm... Just me, I guess. 
Sweet stuff, all.
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - mephi2K on 01/22/2002 11:29:23 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/22/2002 7:18 PM (GMT -6) | | I always thought it was freedom for that was higher than freedom from.
Also - I think this distinction misses the point. Isn't the point that for God's love for us to be meaningful, and hence love, that he must be free to choose otherwise?
Now, I have no problem saying that God always chooses to love us, and that this is part of his character. In my mind it is no different than saying that I always choose not to rob banks. I clearly have the freedom to do so but I choose not to. And its no big deal, in fact, it just never occurs to me to even think about robbing a bank. Or, at least, it hadn't up till now.
To love means to make a free choice to be "for" another person. I know of no other definition. To say that God is love is to do a metaphorical mapping of the source domain "love" to the target domain "God". It is telling us that God is for us. It is no different than saying that Peter is impetuous.
Love is God. Hmmm...that doesn't work. Is there any metaphorical mapping of X is God?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/23/2002 1:17 AM (GMT -6) | | ...Too early in the morning -- sorry if this sound's dry and blunt...
Iconoclast: Also - I think this distinction misses the point. Isn't the point that for God's love for us to be meaningful, and hence love, that he must be free to choose otherwise?
PoW: Does "meaningful" in your statement mean "sentimental." It seems to function that way. If you insert "efficacious" then you get more to the point of our real need.
Iconoclast: Love is God. Hmmm...that doesn't work. Is there any metaphorical mapping of X is God?
PoW: When Meph wrote, "How does the statement 'God is love' differ from 'Love is God'?" he was, I think, summarizing the point made in what I quoted from Yannaras:
quote:
"being stems not from the essence, which would make it an ontological necessity, but from the person and the freedom of its love which 'hypostasizes' being into a personal and trinitarian communion..."
If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it. Evaluative categories could refer only to nature or essence, but then personal distinctiveness would be subordinated to the necessity imposed by natural definitions, and consequently, once again, it would be non-existant or substantially curtailed.. In that case, the person of God would "undergo" whatever happened to the nature.
"If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it."
PoW: I think that Doc is heading cross-country for what those statements say by way of negation. But I also think that Meph has a point in his criticism of Doc's means. I'm so light on intellectual baggage (what am I admitting?) that I'm content to just go the whole 9-yards and accept that it all flows from the fountainhead of the Father, personally.
Iconoclast: To love means to make a free choice to be "for" another person. I know of no other definition. To say that God is love is to do a metaphorical mapping of the source domain "love" to the target domain "God". It is telling us that God is for us. It is no different than saying that Peter is impetuous.
PoW: The problem I see here is sketched by recalling the difference between "person" and "individual." When Icon says "for" he switched Doc's word "to" to "for." "For" reads to me as having distance. Trinitarian love, which God invites us to share in, has the mysterious attribute of not confusing persons but still being "one." That is it is definitely not autonomously separated. The mysteries of BITH the Trinity AND the Incarnation are 100% instructive here.
PoW: Let me repeat: The mysteries of BOTH the Trinity AND the Incarnation are 100% instructive here; especially in their doctrinal formulation! What those formulas describe is not just abstractions and ideas. They describe our salvation! That is what the chuch has always been saying.
Edited by - potonwheel on 01/23/2002 4:58:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/23/2002 2:19 AM (GMT -6) | | POW said:
quote:
When Meph wrote, "How does the statement 'God is love' differ from 'Love is God'?" he was, I think, summarizing the point made in what I quoted from Yannaras:
"being stems not from the essence, which would make it an ontological necessity, but from the person and the freedom of its love which 'hypostasizes' being into a personal and trinitarian communion..."
If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it. Evaluative categories could refer only to nature or essence, but then personal distinctiveness would be subordinated to the necessity imposed by natural definitions, and consequently, once again, it would be non-existant or substantially curtailed.. In that case, the person of God would "undergo" whatever happened to the nature.
"If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it."
Exactamundo. Thanks, POW.
Icon:
quote:
Now, I have no problem saying that God always chooses to love us, and that this is part of his character. In my mind it is no different than saying that I always choose not to rob banks. I clearly have the freedom to do so but I choose not to. And its no big deal, in fact, it just never occurs to me to even think about robbing a bank. Or, at least, it hadn't up till now.
There's a problem with this. Remember the Lakoff stuff. Our subconscious rules a LOT more than we often think it does. It is possible that you currently don't choose to rob banks because your ultimate situation doesn't call for it. In other words, I would submit that you could NEVER know what you would do in certain situations. You don't have perfect self-knowledge. This means that your power of choice is VERY important. Example. If I asked you this question...
"Is there absolutely ANY potential case where you may rob a bank?"
Given your power of choice, you CANNOT say no. To say no would be to postulate a level of self-knowledge that you can NEVER attain. Just a thought.
You also said (with my emphasis):
quote:
To love means to make a free choice to be "for" another person. I know of no other definition. To say that God is love is to do a metaphorical mapping of the source domain "love" to the target domain "God". It is telling us that God is for us. It is no different than saying that Peter is impetuous.
Now, let's look at this. When you say "Peter is impetuous", don't you mean...
In viewing Peter's ACTIONS and WORDS, it would be reasonable to say Peter's behavior patterns are often of a impetuous nature...which in turn gives the impression that Peter may be HABITUALLY impetuous.
Icon, whenever we say "X is good", "X is happy.", or X is impetuous"...we are NOT saying that X is ontologically bound to whatever quality. We are saying that X can be CHARACTERIZED, via it's behaviors, to said quality. So, why try to make it different with the God is love thing.
Moreover, it seems quite evident that the "God is love" thing is HIGHLY METAPHORICAL. Just like when I tell my wife "You are everything to me." or "You are beauty at its best" or something like that. It doesn't seem that hard to see, in my view. To use it as many theologians do seems quite unnecessary.
Thanks, man
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - mephi2K on 01/23/2002 07:20:40 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/23/2002 2:31 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW:
Does "meaningful" in your statement mean "sentimental." It seems to function that way. If you insert "efficacious" then you get more to the point of our real need.
Iconoclast:
No. I am just trying to use the definition of the word love:
Love = free choice to be "for" someone. Therefore if God is love then:
"God is Love" = Logic of Love metaphorically maps to God.
Therefore:
God freely chooses to be "for" us.
Clearly part of the logic of Love is that Love only has meaning (it is only "Love") to the extent that it is freely chosen. To the extent that it is NOT chosen then it is not Love.
It seems like you are suggesting that the primary logic of "Love" is that we get good stuff. As long as God gives us good stuff then who cares whether he is capable of choosing not to or not - it is still Love because it works for us in practical / efficacious terms. Is this what you are saying?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd
Edited by - Iconoclast on 01/23/2002 07:37:41 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/23/2002 2:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon:
quote:
Love = free choice to be "for" someone.
Just my opinion, but I think this description of love is WAAAAAY too vague to be helpful. Could you be more descriptive? I say this because when we deal with the concepts of ALL-LOVING, these descriptions are very important.
PS: How about this:
Love = the free choice of placing the concerns, well-being, and feelings of some OTHER being above the those of the self (AS MUCH AS IS POSSIBLE FOR THE SELF) such that said "other" is, to the highest capability possible for the self, to be estemmed "higher" than the self in all manners.
I think this description can definitely be argued for biblically. Personally, I don't see WHY the "free choice" thing has to be there, but I put it there for your sake since you hold to the "love must be chosen" thing. Could YOU explain to me why you hold the supposition that "love necessitates libertarian free will"?
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - mephi2K on 01/23/2002 07:55:19 AM
Edited by - mephi2K on 01/23/2002 07:57:12 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/23/2002 3:02 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW & Mephi,
I'm confused, do you think Iconoclast disagrees with that Yannaras quote?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 01/23/2002 08:04:36 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/23/2002 3:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia,
When Icon says that it is part of God's character that he always loves us, is he saying that God's "character" is more of a CHARACTERIZATION inducted from God's actions/energies than an ontological "essence" type thing? If so, then I guess he doesn't disagree with the quote.
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 1/23/2002 3:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi,
Yes, that is what he is saying. He's left for work and probably won't be back on here until tonight.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/23/2002 3:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
quote:
It seems Empiress has a point that God's necessary love and highest freedom are in tension only if you think that the "freedom to do otherwise" (libertarian freedom) is the highest form of freedom. But why think that? Isn't the "freedom from" higher than "freedom to"?
Mephi:
quote:
Huh? This seems like the prison guard who tries to console a prisoner by telling him about the "freedom" he has FROM all the existentially anxiety producing choices in the outside world. Because his choices are so limited by where he is, he actually has a higher freedom than he would if he were outside. Hmmm... Just me, I guess.
I think it may be helpful to refer to Paul's discussion of freedom in his letter to the Romans. He describes evil/sin nature as bondage that we can only be set free from through Christ. However, he also concedes there that being free from sin is bondage of another kind ("slave to righteousness").
Romans 6:16-18, 20-22:
"Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?
But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and become slaves of righteousness.
When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the tings you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life."
In my opinion, Paul is telling us that freedom FROM sinning is a much greater freedom than freedom TO sin, because of the RESULTS: eternal life for one and death for another.
As Mephi would say: Hmmmmmmmmmm......
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/23/2002 3:34 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS said: In my opinion, Paul is telling us that freedom FROM sinning is a much greater freedom than freedom TO sin, because of the RESULTS: eternal life for one and death for another.
Semeia: Yes, but this is still just a metaphor. When one accepts Christ one doesn't ACTUALLY become a SLAVE to righteousness, that's why people continue to sin after they are saved. So in this case freedom FROM isn't really freedom from--people still continue to have the freedom to sin.
Secondly, if you take this passage as some kind of proof that freedom FROM is greater than freedom TO, would you also say that freedom FROM loving someone is greater than having the freedom TO love someone?
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 01/23/2002 08:35:34 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/23/2002 5:38 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Semeia: Yes, but this is still just a metaphor. When one accepts Christ one doesn't ACTUALLY become a SLAVE to righteousness, that's why people continue to sin after they are saved. So in this case freedom FROM isn't really freedom from--people still continue to have the freedom to sin.
My point here is only that freedom is limited under both sin and righteousness, and in attempting to determine whether a God who CANNOT sin because of his nature is actually less free than humans who CAN sin, I think our answer here is NO. "Freedom FROM" sinning is greater than "freedom TO" sin. Which is exactly what Doc has been trying to say all along. . .see his statement below:
quote:
Doc:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems Empiress has a point that God's necessary love and highest freedom are in tension only if you think that the "freedom to do otherwise" (libertarian freedom) is the highest form of freedom. But why think that? Isn't the "freedom from" higher than "freedom to"?
Semeia:
quote:
Secondly, if you take this passage as some kind of proof that freedom FROM is greater than freedom TO, would you also say that freedom FROM loving someone is greater than having the freedom TO love someone?
On to your second point. I may be missing something here, but I don't see why one would lead to the other. Hmmmm....let me say it this way:
Freedom from committing EVIL is greater/higher than freedom to commit EVIL.
So "freedom FROM" is only greater than "freedom TO" when we are talking about EVIL, not GOOD. In fact, it makes sense that the two kinds of freedoms would apply oppositely (is that a word?) when applied to the opposite of evil. Yes?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 1/23/2002 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS said:
quote:
Freedom from committing EVIL is greater/higher than freedom to commit EVIL.
Ever see the movie "A Clockwork Orange" with Michael McDowell? Heh...
By the way, why do you hold this assumption?
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - mephi2K on 01/23/2002 1:02:47 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 1/23/2002 8:20 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Ever see the movie "A Clockwork Orange" with Michael McDowell? Heh...
Yep. I think Al Pacino's free will speech in "Devil's Advocate" touches on this, too. . .
quote:
By the way, why do you hold this assumption?
You're asking me to restate my reasons? My posts for the last couple of days have attempted to explain my position on this (I hope I haven't been THAT vague. . .). Could you ask me a more specific question?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/23/2002 12:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon, Semeia, and Meph....
Try this. (I'm going into polysyllabic mode--but it still might end up being true.)
Love is the ontological state where the other's good IS your good.
You become one with them. Communion.
Just a good try.
So far I like it.
PoW
Edited by - potonwheel on 01/23/2002 5:13:06 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 1/23/2002 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi asked me:
quote:
1) You don't see any significant problems with the version of ontological argument that you are using? None at all? (Hint: SUBJECTIVITY!!!!!!)
Yes...there is an element of subjectivity to it. We can't escape some level of subjectivity though! It's impossible! Such is life. Our entire faith is based on all kinds of subjectivity that can't be proven or shown to be "Objective Truth." FAITH is SUBJECTIVE.
Oh sheesh, I admitted subjectivity...the cat's out of the bag now! *hides under my desk and waits for an onslaught of accusations to come my way*
Where does religious experience (one's personal experiences of God including your own) fit into all this in your opinion??
If, as A. Platinga asserts, our internal religious experience is epistemically valid, it can form the basis of a "rational" system of belief and understanding of the world. Just as we rely on our own memory or our feelings and emotions...ie internalized experiences that can't be "proven," so we can trust (weighed against communal discernment and Scripture, etc.) our internal religious experiences.
quote:
2) Isn't it true that Anselm used his ontological argument to argue for God being TIMELESS and IMPASSIBLE...which are two things that are diametrically opposed to open view theism?
Yeah..I think these are clearly culturally biased "qualities" of God. They're not Scriptural (they're Platonic) and they are in contradiction to most people's EXPERIENCE of God! This shows that the qualities we attribute to God are subjective, but through the consensus of history, community, and diversity of thought and experience, we are able to challenge and critique such presuppositions.
quote:
3)Wouldn't you say that "love" is INDEED a moral category in a way that you describe...especially when you want to argue that the greatest possible being SHOULD be "loving"? (A thought: perhaps I am confusing the term "moral" with "axiological". I am primarily dealing with the issue of WORTH and VALUE, though "oughts" are definitely involved. At present, I'll just continue to consider it a moral category.)
No, I wouldn't say that love is a moral category, particularly not when applied to the Divine. Love is God's nature. God is the Standard of morality, God is not "moral" in that sense, God is amoral. Human beings are moral or immoral, not God. God IS. God is the I AM.
quote:
4) How does the statement "God is love" differ from "Love is God"?
I could talk about how they differ grammatically, but I don't think that's what you're getting at. Theologically I think they're both True. God is the origin and originator of Love. All love comes from God. Love is also the foundation of all other human values. Justice, for example, is only a "value" because it is "most loving."
Can "love" exist separate from God? If so, how? How can we know love apart from God's love?
Be groovy to one another,
Empiress
Edited by - Empiress on 01/23/2002 5:25:58 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/23/2002 12:58 PM (GMT -6) | | To be Love, it must chosen freely in the affirmative. (PoW, ripping off John of Damascus; or trying to.)
What's that mean?
1. "chosen freely" -- The choice must be according to Love. Here love means in accordance with our non-autonomous created nature, that by design we only fully exist when we are in communion with God and each other.
I have not made too many "free choices" in my life. But the one's I have have been by the Spirit -- as fruit. And one of them was chosing to marry my wife! Such "free" choiced are done with fear and trembling!!! But also with boldness.
2. "chosen" -- Love is choosed. (pardon my grammar) it is a synergistic event, including us and God; and I can also imagine that synergy with the person loved, and the energies of their loving us in the same way are also involved. ("Communion" is a word that rushes towards critical mass really suddenly and quick.)
3. "in the affirmative" -- (AOL JUST SIGNED OFF!!!!!!)
I was saying that what Meph wrote about "freedom not to sin" and "freedom to sin." I liked what he said. Behind that all is the fact that nothing, no-thing, was designed or is maintained by God to be autonomous. Everything was "breathed" by God's Word to be in relationship. And the creation was designed to have a mediator to till and keep and offer it back to God. So, selfishness is the most un-self-rewarding action possible. Actions that remove one from the communion that is integral to one's nature is destructive. So, decisions that are Love are actions in the affirmative that by their nature also benifit oneself.
So, Icon, when you asked whether I was saying that Love is when we "get good stuff" -- yes (I get to be cute here.), but not in the way you were asking it.
But what you actually wrote made no sense to me: (I'll say why.)
quote:
It seems like you are suggesting that the primary logic of "Love" is that we get good stuff. As long as God gives us good stuff then who cares whether he is capable of choosing not to or not - it is still Love because it works for us in practical / efficacious terms. Is this what you are saying?
How can I interpret "God give[ing] good stuff . . . whether he is capable of choosing not to or not." This is the creator and sustainer. (Where is Pia's discussion of pan-entheism?) When the discussion begins with Genesis and John 1 with the creator and creation's nature, most of this other confusing stuff doesn't come up.
PoW
========================================
PS. I wish I could get my Calvinist and Orthodox friends together to discuss. They are BOTH reall close on what I've just written above. This would fly really well at a particualar Dutch Reformed college I taught art at in NW Iowa. But there the Neo-Kuyperians would speak of "creation law" and quote Calvin, Seeveldt, Rookmacher, Vollenhoeven, Doerwert, etc. they would speak of "creational norms. But they would be saying the same thing as the "created nature" of the Orthodox.
And BTW -- almost no Calvinist with a Dutch accent I've ever known spends any, any, ANY breath talking about tulips unless it is the kind that you put in the ground. They spend most of it on the stuff I'm posting here right now.
But what I'm posting, is, I think, firmly Orthodox.
:0)
Edited by - potonwheel on 01/23/2002 6:05:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/23/2002 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Could YOU explain to me why you hold the supposition that "love necessitates libertarian free will"?
Iconoclast:
If your father made your brother be really, really nice to you ALL the time such that it really seemed like he loved you and yet you knew he was being forced to do this, would you say that your brother loved you?
If Michael McDowell was a really bad person and the government "reprogrammed" his subconscious to do only good things to other people and you knew this, would you say he loved people?
I think we all agree that the metaphorical mappings that make up the concept of Love entail a free choice. We all simply agree on this definition. This is how we use this word. If love isn’t chosen – then it is not love – it is some other thing.
Have you ever seen “The Stepford Wives”?
PoW:
How can I interpret "God give[ing] good stuff . . . whether he is capable of choosing not to or not." This is the creator and sustainer. (Where is Pia's discussion of pan-entheism?) When the discussion begins with Genesis and John 1 with the creator and creation's nature, most of this other confusing stuff doesn't come up.
Iconoclast:
OK, lets back this question all the way up. Was it a free choice for God to create us? Or, is it just God’s nature to create beings like us and give us good stuff?
Will the real process theologians please stand up.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/23/2002 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi:
Icon, whenever we say "X is good", "X is happy.", or X is impetuous"...we are NOT saying that X is ontologically bound to whatever quality. We are saying that X can be CHARACTERIZED, via it's behaviors, to said quality. So, why try to make it different with the God is love thing.
Moreover, it seems quite evident that the "God is love" thing is HIGHLY METAPHORICAL. Just like when I tell my wife "You are everything to me." or "You are beauty at its best" or something like that. It doesn't seem that hard to see, in my view. To use it as many theologians do seems quite unnecessary.
Iconoclast: Agree!
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/23/2002 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW:
I was saying that what Meph wrote about "freedom not to sin" and "freedom to sin." I liked what he said. Behind that all is the fact that nothing, no-thing, was designed or is maintained by God to be autonomous. Everything was "breathed" by God's Word to be in relationship. And the creation was designed to have a mediator to till and keep and offer it back to God. So, selfishness is the most un-self-rewarding action possible. Actions that remove one from the communion that is integral to one's nature is destructive. So, decisions that are Love are actions in the affirmative that by their nature also benifit oneself.
Iconoclast:
Would you then argue that laying down your life for your brother is really a self-rewarding action? If someone totally believed that sacrificing themselves for a greater good meant that they would then go to heaven and this is why they did it, would you say that it was a loving act? If someone thought for sure that when they died, that was it - no afterlife - and yet they sacrificed themselves to save another, would you say they it was a loving act?
If you substituted the word Life for Love in the last sentence of your paragraph above then I would agree with this. Christopher Alexander says it thusly:
>>>
These two things are true of every living center:
1. Each center gets its life, always, from the fact that it is helping to support and enliven some larger center.
2. The center becomes precious because of it.
"The Nature of Order - The Phenomenon of Life" - Christopher Alexander
<<<
I just think that love is a quite different thing.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd
Edited by - Iconoclast on 01/23/2002 9:53:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/23/2002 4:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc:
So, might not God be seen as the MOST free being precisely because he DOESN'T have to choose between good and evil? And will we not be MORE free in heaven when (presumably) we no longer have to choose the way we do now?
Iconoclast:
It seems to me that the presupposition behind this logic is that "to choose" good over evil is burdensome - it is work - it takes attention. Which means that there is some force at work that our attention needs to overcome. When you then say that freedom FROM choosing is higher aren't you really saying that you are free from this opposing force that requires attention to overcome?
What does this have to do with being free from having a choice? This logic has nothing to do with whether a choice has been done away with. It simply means that you make the choice and stick with it until you decide to change your choice.
If suddenly the world ain't looking so good anymore you might just be sorry that you made it and decide to get rid of the whole thing. Have I ever mentioned what a good thing Noah did for us? His free choice to follow God made a huge difference. His free choice caused God to change his mind again about getting rid of the whole thing.
The highest level of freedom is the freedom from being at war with ourselves and being at war with God.
Strike that.
The highest level of freedom is the freedom for being in unity with ourselves and being in unity with God.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 1/23/2002 4:47 PM (GMT -6) | | BJS said: My point here is only that freedom is limited under both sin and righteousness, and in attempting to determine whether a God who CANNOT sin because of his nature is actually less free than humans who CAN sin, I think our answer here is NO. "Freedom FROM" sinning is greater than "freedom TO" sin. Which is exactly what Doc has been trying to say all along. . .
Semeia: I realize that is what Doc is saying, but nonetheless it seems illogical to me. My response is pretty much the same as Mephi's: "Huh?" NOT having the ability to do something, even if that something is negative, is not ever a greater freedom than HAVING the ability to do something, even if one never chooses to do it.
Now, I think when you are an eternal being like God, and you know everything about sin--what causes it and what it leads to--you simply don't have any temptation in that regard. I mean, I've never had any struggle whatsoever concerning whether or not I should go play on the freeway. It's not something I'll ever have to struggle with, even though it is well within my freedom to do it. But if I was programmed to never play on the freeway, I would be less free than I am now, even though my actions would not be different.
BJS said:
[Quoting Semeia:]quote:
Secondly, if you take this passage as some kind of proof that freedom FROM is greater than freedom TO, would you also say that freedom FROM loving someone is greater than having the freedom TO love someone?
Freedom from committing EVIL is greater/higher than freedom to commit EVIL.
So "freedom FROM" is only greater than "freedom TO" when we are talking about EVIL, not GOOD. In fact, it makes sense that the two kinds of freedoms would apply oppositely (is that a word?) when applied to the opposite of evil. Yes?
Semeia: If it's Saturday Night Live and we're talking to Jon Lovit ...  ...yeah, that's it...that's right, that's what I meant...that's the ticket...
(OK, I'm kidding, I'm KIDDing!!!! )
No, the whole thought process strikes me as completely illogical. It really confuses me why you and Doc and anyone needs to say this about God. And I thought you all insisted on God's omnipotence. It is completely contradictory to say that God is both omnipotent and yet oddly he doesn't have the power to commit a sin. (And most sins don't take that much energy, when you think about it.) So God can't kick the cat? Even if he wanted to, because God is love, and love doesn't kick the cat?
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think God goes around kicking cats, but you know what--I actually give him credit for making the choice to not kick the cat. And I give him credit for making the crazy, beautiful choice to love the likes of us.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | 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 7:32 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 |
|
|