quote:

---

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?

---

quote:

---

PoW:

But are you disagreeing with what I thought you would embrace, that: "Actions that remove one from the communion that is integral to one's nature is destructive."?

Iconoclast:

I totally embrace this statement. What I was objecting to was the next sentence: “So, decisions that are Love are actions in the affirmative that by their nature also benifit oneself.” I then tried to say (but botched it) that I would agree with: “So, decisions that are Life affirming are actions in the affirmative that by their nature also benefit oneself.”

I was trying to separate what it means to love versus what it means to be life-affirming. I was trying to suggest that one might act in a life-affirming way and yet do it not out of love but out of complete self-aggrandizement. I am trying to get at intent. I didn’t think about what Paul said until you alluded to it. But I think I am trying to get at the fact that we can truly do life-affirming good works and yet not have love.

Here is how I would answer my own questions:

Would you then argue that laying down your life for your brother is really a self-rewarding action? Clearly from the perspective of earthly life we would have to say no. I loved my brother and chose to die so that he may live – but I died.

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? No – we would all agree that there was no love there. It was just an attempt at good life-affirming works in order to receive a reward.

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? Yes – we would all agree that here was someone who knew they were getting no reward and made a free choice to love. And then I would go on to say that this free choice is what love is really about. The less the neccessity or reward of this free choice to be “for” another is the more we would all affirm that it is truly Love.

So, I guess I am just in a kind of mis-match debate mode at the moment – looking for every opportunity to explore the justification for saying that Love entails a free choice. And that God is Love means that the logic of Love entailing a free choice applies to God also. And this very fact is what makes “God is Love” such a powerful statement. To suggest that it somehow means that God’s essence is such that he cannot choose to NOT love is in my mind to totally take away the meaning of this statement and render it of little value in terms of glorifying God.

I totally agree with the Yannaras quote and assume you do too. However, I also hear you objecting to the statement that God has the freedom to choose NOT to love. I hear you saying that God MUST Love. Perhaps I am hearing you wrong. If so, I apologize. If not, I really don’t understand the reasons for why you are asserting this.

thanks,
Iconoclast

---

quote:

---

1 Cor 13:7-10 RSV: "7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; 10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.?

Compare to the NIV: "7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears."

---

quote:

---

Semeia: Yes, we're married...

---

quote:

---

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.

---

I agree that at first glance this may seem illogical, but that is why I find Paul's description of sin as bondage so intriguing. Surely a freedom FROM bondage is greater than a freedom TO be bound. God is more free than we are because he is free of the temptation, the inner struggle, the cognitive dissonance, etc., that the ability to sin creates.

I CAN HEAR MEPHI'S VOICE RINGING IN MY EARS ALREADY: "THAT'S RIGHT, BRETT! SO HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU ALSO ARGUE THAT FOR MANKIND TO BE TRULY FREE, SIN/EVIL HAD TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE?" (Or, in his actual words:

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"?

---

Again, this is difficult, and I readily concede that I am not completely confident in my position, but I think the answer to this seeming contradiction is that free will must be understood one way for God and another way for his creation. Humanity, as contingent beings, cannot be forced by the necessary being to choose a relationship with him, if real love is to exist. However, as I have tried (and probably failed) to articulate before, I don't think the same applies to the necessary being because He is not being forced by those that he loves to love him. Doc said it this way, and I think it makes sense:

quote:

---

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.

---

All right, moving on. . .

Semeia:

quote:

---

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?

---

Doesn't Scripture tell us that God "cannot" lie (Heb. 6:18)? Hmmmmmm....

Semeia:

quote:

---

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.

---

So true. Isn't He wonderful? I've said this a couple of times in my discussions with Mephi about omnibenevolence: whether God is ontologically good or He chooses to be good, the beautiful point is that He IS good.

Thanks for the dialogue, Semeia. As always, I look forward to hearing from you.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

quote:

---

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.

---

There is a difference between "love necessitating libertarian free will" and "love necessitating the POWER OF CHOICE" (I think I've spent quite some time describing both.) I can see how love necessitates the latter, but NOT NECESSARILY the former.



BJS:

quote:

---

I agree that at first glance this may seem illogical, but that is why I find Paul's description of sin as bondage so intriguing. Surely a freedom FROM bondage is greater than a freedom TO be bound. God is more free than we are because he is free of the temptation, the inner struggle, the cognitive dissonance, etc., that the ability to sin creates.

I CAN HEAR MEPHI'S VOICE RINGING IN MY EARS ALREADY: "THAT'S RIGHT, BRETT! SO HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU ALSO ARGUE THAT FOR MANKIND TO BE TRULY FREE, SIN/EVIL HAD TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE?" (Or, in his actual words:

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"?

Again, this is difficult, and I readily concede that I am not completely confident in my position, but I think the answer to this seeming contradiction is that free will must be understood one way for God and another way for his creation. Humanity, as contingent beings, cannot be forced by the necessary being to choose a relationship with him, if real love is to exist. However, as I have tried (and probably failed) to articulate before, I don't think the same applies to the necessary being because He is not being forced by those that he loves to love him. Doc said it this way, and I think it makes sense:

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.

---

Ok. Ok. I'm going to sit down and REEEEALY try to get this. I'm going to try to restate what I'm hearing you say. This is it:

The working principle is that "genuine" love NECESSITATES libertarian free will. However, this principle ONLY applies for contingent beings (and not necessary beings). This is because contingent beings COULD NOT possess the inherent quality of being perfectly good while God, the necessary being, could. But we don't say that God is NOT FREE. We say that God just has a different type of freedom...the freedom not to act in a LESS than all-good fashion.

Is this what you are saying? If so, I wonder if you will do something. A few posts back, I attempted a different way of looking at this. INSTEAD of using the MORAL aspect, I used the CHOICE aspect. Looking back, I don't think that you really gave much, if any, attention to it. I think that the idea works WAY better than this attempt at using moral ideas ontologically. It's my second post on THIS PAGE I REALLY, REALLY think that my idea is more workable. What do you think?



Miss E's next. Later




Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Does God choose sometimes to negate our moral freedom?

---

From what I understand, Doc makes it clear that, under certain circumstances, God CAN INDEED negate our free will, making it like unto compatibilism. This is well within the parameters of open view theism.

quote:

---

And what does this say about the meaning that our love would have for him if he did so?

---

I suppose God would play the pragmatist and let those times slide for his "greater purposes"

quote:

---

And what does this say about evil and God's relationship to it?

---

It says that it is INDEED possible for God to compatibilistically (hmm...is that a word? Heck, no! LOL) "allow" someone to commit a sin that he wants...again probably for "greater purposes"

quote:

---

And why doesn't he negate it more often to prevent evil?

---

Ah! Now that's the $64,000 question! Many people will use some version of the free will argument to explain this. But anyone can see that this SUCKS when you look at particular bouts of evil? Remember Genie??? I think that EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD who read that story would say that if there was ANY TIME IN HISTORY that we would have liked God to do some compatibilistic work to help someone out, it would have been THAT case. Don't you agree? At any rate, it ends up either being a mystery of circumstance (Doc's view) or a mystery of God's willing (my view. But given the notion that compatibilism of humans by God IS POSSIBLE within open view theism, how can the mystery of circumstance idea really hold up?

quote:

---

Or does he always choose not to negate it?

---

I don't know. Peter's denial seems to be a pretty good example. Even DOC grants the possibility that the Peter episode was compatibilism at work.

quote:

---

And how does this relate to Doc's premise that he allows us to be morally free so that our love for him is meaningful?

---

Obviously God is "free" to override that little axiom when it suits him. Isn't that a hoot?


________________________________________

quote:

---

I'm not a philosopher, so maybe this is obvious, but how can someone have the power of choice if they don't have libertarian free will? Maybe I don't understand what libertarian free will means.

---

In essence, libertarian free will states that sentient beings are ULTIMATELY self-determining, in that it doesn't matter HOW MUCH or HOW STRONG any factors come to bear on a being with respect to live options, said beings can ALWAYS do likewise. LFW assumes that there is never a case where only ONE consequent outcome is possible from any given state of reality. It is assumed that NOT EVEN GOD constrains things like this, thus LFW stands.

With the idea of the power of volition (as I like to call it) the main thing is that sentient beings are REASONABLY self-determining, in that for all intents and purposes, the emotions, thoughts, and acts of will emerges from said beings....but this MAY BE in the ULTIMATE context of an overall determinism. It primarily worries about the phenomenological aspect of choice (which if people would think about it, is the ONLY ONE that matters to US)

Basically, LFW is incompatible with determinism, while the power of volition IS.

Love ya,


Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.



Edited by - mephi2K on 01/25/2002 12:01:00 PM

quote:

---

In essence, libertarian free will states that sentient beings are ULTIMATELY self-determining, in that it doesn't matter HOW MUCH or HOW STRONG any factors come to bear on a being with respect to live options, said beings can ALWAYS do likewise. LFW assumes that there is never a case where only ONE consequent outcome is possible from any given state of reality. It is assumed that NOT EVEN GOD constrains things like this, thus LFW stands.

With the idea of the power of volition (as I like to call it) the main thing is that sentient beings are REASONABLY self-determining, in that for all intents and purposes, the emotions, thoughts, and acts of will emerges from said beings....but this MAY BE in the ULTIMATE context of an overall determinism. It primarily worries about the phenomenological aspect of choice (which if people would think about it, is the ONLY ONE that matters to US)

Basically, LFW is incompatible with determinism, while the power of volition IS.

---

Semeia: Well I certainly believe that human beings are not completely free. None of us choose to be born for example. A blind person does not choose to be blind. Our subconscious controls 95 percent of our thinking, and makes numerous decisions that we are not even aware of. In fact, we really are slaves to sin, because most of our thought occurs below the threshhold of awareness, where we have little access to it. (This is why I believe that the fall was inherent to creation, and not at all something God didn't anticipate and expect.)

So the question for me is, how much of this determinism is simply a necessary attribute of life arising out of complex adaptive systems, a necessary boundary of life, a property of living creatures in living systems, and how much of it is a result of God's choice to determine us?

I don't know the answer to that, but I have an antipathy to thinking of God determining something that led to evil, unless that something was actually essential for life to exist at all.

(And I find the Calvinist idea that God had it all figured out from the beginning and the future is determined, etc, as illogical and abhorrent, on the basis of God's boredom alone: I mean, why bother? Even my kids can only play with trucks in the sand for so long......But I realize you're not saying that.)

Mephi said: At any rate, it ends up either being a mystery of circumstance (Doc's view) or a mystery of God's willing (my view. But given the notion that compatibilism of humans by God IS POSSIBLE within open view theism, how can the mystery of circumstance idea really hold up?

Semeia: Why can't it be both? Why can't it be a mystery of circumstance AND a mystery of God's willing? Don't we make discoveries every day which explain diseases and behavior and such? Aren't we constantly finding out that things are not as they seem, that there are forces that we become aware of that drive behavior and results that were previously mysterious to us? And by the same token don't we have to accept, because of the myriad of confusing events in the Bible, and the periodically opaque actions of God, that ultimately the extent of God's willing IS mysterious to us? Isn't this one of those walls of logic that you were talking about on the other thread?

Can't you and Doc both be right?

Partly determined and partly free,
Influenced by God and circumstance,
Making choices that sometimes feel free
And sometimes feel inevitable,
With a brain that I didn't choose,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

quote:

---

"Well I certainly believe that human beings are not completely free. None of us choose to be born for example. A blind person does not choose to be blind. Our subconscious controls 95 percent of our thinking, and makes numerous decisions that we are not even aware of. In fact, we really are slaves to sin, because most of our thought occurs below the threshhold of awareness, where we have little access to it. (This is why I believe that the fall was inherent to creation, and not at all something God didn't anticipate and expect.)

---

quote:

---

Well I certainly believe that human beings are not completely free. None of us choose to be born for example. A blind person does not choose to be blind. Our subconscious controls 95 percent of our thinking, and makes numerous decisions that we are not even aware of. In fact, we really are slaves to sin, because most of our thought occurs below the threshhold of awareness, where we have little access to it. (This is why I believe that the fall was inherent to creation, and not at all something God didn't anticipate and expect.)

So the question for me is, how much of this determinism is simply a necessary attribute of life arising out of complex adaptive systems, a necessary boundary of life, a property of living creatures in living systems, and how much of it is a result of God's choice to determine us?

I don't know the answer to that, but I have an antipathy to thinking of God determining something that led to evil, unless that something was actually essential for life to exist at all.

(And I find the Calvinist idea that God had it all figured out from the beginning and the future is determined, etc, as illogical and abhorrent, on the basis of God's boredom alone: I mean, why bother?

---

First of all, how would you or anyone else KNOW that God gets bored. I find this type of thought very problematic. And it seems rife to me within open view theism. To me, this is just attributing thoroughly HUMAN ideas to God. How do WE know that God gets bored? Determinism may not bother God in the least. This is just a pet peeve of mine.

Second, you are QUITE correct about the level of determination the exists of which we know.


Semeia:

quote:

---

Why can't it be both? Why can't it be a mystery of circumstance AND a mystery of God's willing? Don't we make discoveries every day which explain diseases and behavior and such? Aren't we constantly finding out that things are not as they seem, that there are forces that we become aware of that drive behavior and results that were previously mysterious to us? And by the same token don't we have to accept, because of the myriad of confusing events in the Bible, and the periodically opaque actions of God, that ultimately the extent of God's willing IS mysterious to us? Isn't this one of those walls of logic that you were talking about on the other thread?

---

Actually, this is what Doc says. That we are partly determined and partly free. He says rightly that ALL freedom has limits, especially structural. Human beings are not free to spontaneously fly to the moon under their own power or turn into tigers. And this forms a limitation. This is why in my post I said "LIVE OPTIONS" Libertarian free will operates within the scope of live options available to human beings. See, I don't necessarily have a problem with Doc's view of LFW, given certain presupps. What I WILL say is that I think Doc's warfare worldview system:

1) drastically underestimates HOW MUCH we are determined
2) doesn't adequately deal with the possibility of compatibilism in the system and how that works out
3) really causes PROBLEMS with the problem of evil.



Vexen:

quote:

---

It seems that our actual actions and shortcomings in real life are frequently not our choice, or are immensely influenced by forces out of our control, it would seem to me that in these cases it is God's duty, upon that person's death, to show them the truth and alter their basic personality so that they have a chance to make a free informed decisions about their future.

If that holds, then can it be said that all behavior deserves the same grace, and therefore, all people choose to accept God, once their materialist influences are shed? This is surely a Buddhist and Universalist belief, that it is only real life constraints that can convince us to deny God/Heaven/Nirvana, and once we have died we see the "true" reality, and any aspect of our personality (caused by misinformed decisions) that caused us to reject God vanish.

This is what I would certainly believe if I believed in a moral creator. The main shortcoming is, of course: What was the point of life in the first place?

---

Vexen's thoughts here demonstrate what I'm talking about to Semeia above. Recognizing the MANY ways that we are determined has drastic consequences on the problem of evil and the issue of salvation.



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

This really confuses me - what thread did you discuss this on?

---

Now that's a question. I've been discussing this since before the board departed from Coolboard! I'll have to search to find some more recent ones.

quote:

---

My assumption is that the power of choice means that it is possible to overcome all the influences and choose against the prevailing tide at least sometimes. And that if this is possible then we have some measure of free will and that means that there is some indeterminism. Power of choice then entails indeterminism.

---

THIS, my friend, is libertarian free will. But from what Semeia and you say, I think I'm being misunderstood (My fault) You said:

quote:

---

Maybe I can state what I think I hear you saying and my objection more clearly.

I hear you saying that LFW means that we MUST be able in EVERY circumstance to freely choose - no matter how strong the forces influencing us. That if there is ever a case where this is not true then there is some measure of determinism and therefore there is no indeterminism

---

Let me replace my statement above:

In essence, libertarian free will states that sentient beings are ULTIMATELY self-determining, in that it doesn't matter HOW MUCH or HOW STRONG any factors come to bear on a being with respect to live options, said beings can ALWAYS do likewise.

I think I didn't explain enough and assumed too much. When I said "live options" this was supposed to LIMIT the amount of choices. For example, it is not a LIVE OPTION for me as a human being to fly to the moon under my own power. That is strictly determined by my constitution as a human. But it IS a LIVE OPTION for me to decide to drink a soda. It is within my power to do so if I so choose. Does this help?


Hmmm...I think what I should do is just go through all my former stuff and bring up the salient points to distinguish LFW from my idea of the
power of volition. HEY, something else. Do you and Semeia know about Albert Bandura and his social learning theory, complete with the idea of "self-efficacy"? THAT would be something good to understand to get my idea of power of volition.




Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

Recognizing the MANY ways that we are determined has drastic consequences on the problem of evil and the issue of salvation.

---

quote:

---

Is this what you are saying? If so, I wonder if you will do something. A few posts back, I attempted a different way of looking at this. INSTEAD of using the MORAL aspect, I used the CHOICE aspect. Looking back, I don't think that you really gave much, if any, attention to it. I think that the idea works WAY better than this attempt at using moral ideas ontologically. It's my second post on THIS PAGE I REALLY, REALLY think that my idea is more workable. What do you think?

---

I'm getting there, Meph. I'm hoping to get a response to you in the next couple of days. Enjoy your weekend.

Semeia:

quote:

---

PS -- I apologize for not getting back to the other part of the conversation, BJS, but hopefully I'll have some time this weekend...

---

No problemo.

Empiress:

quote:

---

To be honest, and I've said this before publically, I'd rather forfeit "heaven" than watch people suffer eternally. Surely I can't be more "loving" than my Creator!

---

Oooh. That's good. I like that. That makes me think.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

quote:

---

To be honest, and I've said this before publically, I'd rather forfeit "heaven" than watch people suffer eternally. Surely I can't be more "loving" than my Creator!

---

Would you have forfeited CREATION (which wasn't necessary) rather than watch sentient beings suffer eternally, if you KNEW that the eternal suffering of at least ONE being was inevitable? Hmmm...

quote:

---

What is the answer to Job's question?]

---

What do you think is (are?) Job's question(s)?