 |
| 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/21/2003 6:46 AM (GMT -6) |   | TWT-1 - Love Entails Freedom.
Love must be freely chosen entails non-triune love requires epistemic distance.
Entropy is a necessary result of epistemic distance. Entropy is a measure of information loss that is irreversible.
Natural evil comes about because of Entropy. In any system where entropy functions – that is – in any system where there is information loss – there will be the following features:
1. Chaotic processes that destroy complex organizational units (organisms and so on). (e.g. tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and so on).
2. Life or creative processes (that which creates negative entropy) will consume information in an irreversible way. We call this the “food chain”. Thus, organisms will “consume” other organisms in such a way as to cause information loss in the other organism often resulting in the “death” of said organism. This happens on microscopic and macroscopic scales. A bacterium “eating” or breaking down some organic structure is no different than an eagle eating a mouse.
In a system of this nature we would consider a higher complexity organism feeding off of a lower complexity organism as a “good” thing in that it is fundamentally overcoming entropy (locally of course) and bringing about more order – or more life. We would consider a lower complexity organism feeding off of a higher complexity organism as a “bad” thing in that it is increasing entropy and thus bringing about less order – or less life. An example of this is a virus killing a human.
A virus killing a human increases entropy (“natural evil”) and an eagle eating a mouse decreases entropy.
Entropy / information loss IS natural evil.
Satan (ha satan – the accuser / adversary) is the decision to blame God / ourselves / others when the forces of entropy cause us pain. In the situation where bad things happen to us and we don’t know why due to entropy / information loss / epistemic distance – the decision to blame God, to accuse God and thus become an adversary to God IS ha satan (Satan). It IS to add greater information loss or entropy to the system and thus brings about less life. This is the opposite of choosing life or negative entropy. To choose and enhance life IS to NOT blame or accuse based on lack of information but to rather TRUST (benefit of the doubt) and seek accurate information.
There is no need to posit free-will agents as being responsible for natural evil. “Natural evil” is a necessary consequence of epistemic distance being required for humans to be able to choose to love God.
This shows us that “natural evil” is really a legal view way of understanding life processes in a system where epistemic distance / entropy is foundational. This very understanding of “natural evil” itself comes out of the view that life processes here on earth are EVIL. THEY are not EVIL. The accusation of God, ourselves and each other that epistemic distance allows IS evil. Normal life processes are good. God said that Himself when He created this world.
thanks,
Iconoclast
P.S. The evidence for epistemic distance entailing entropy can be found in the book “Three Roads to Quantum Gravity” by Lee Smolin. The chapters 5 – Black Holes and Hidden Regions, 6 – Acceleration and Heat, 7 – Black Holes are Hot, 8 – Area and Information and 12 – The Holographic Principle are the relevant chapters to look at.
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/21/2003 5:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
This very understanding of ³natural evil² itself comes out of the view that life processes here on earth are EVIL. THEY are not EVIL. The accusation of God, ourselves and each other that epistemic distance allows IS evil. Normal life processes are good. God said that Himself when He created this world.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Bro. I'm on such a slow modem (and I can't speak for the machine speed--"not"), but I'm taking this last part as representing you.
If so, I heartily agree!!!
This is one of only three threads I'm even going to attempt to open. "Entropyaught my attention. A Byzantine way of looking at this, I think, would be that the "logoi" spoken By God that makes things what they are accounts for their providence. God does not leave and let the clock run by itself -- 18th cent. German philosophy notwithstanding.
Preach! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 8/22/2003 1:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Satan (ha satan – the accuser / adversary) is the decision to blame God / ourselves / others when the forces of entropy cause us pain.
quote:
Matthew 8:28 When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs. They were so extremely violent that no one could pass by that way.
29 And they cried out, saying, "What business do we have with each other, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
30 Now there was a herd of many swine feeding at a distance from them.
31 The demons began to entreat Him, saying, "If You are going to cast us out, send us into the herd of swine."
32 And He said to them, "Go!" And they came out and went into the swine, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the waters.
Mark 5:1 They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes.
2 When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him,
3 and he had his dwelling among the tombs. And no one was able to bind him anymore, even with a chain;
4 because he had often been bound with shackles and chains, and the chains had been torn apart by him and the shackles broken in pieces, and no one was strong enough to subdue him.
5 Constantly, night and day, he was screaming among the tombs and in the mountains, and gashing himself with stones.
6 Seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him;
7 and shouting with a loud voice, he said, "What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!"
8 For He had been saying to him, "Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!"
9 And He was asking him, "What is your name?" And he said to Him, "My name is Legion; for we are many."
10 And he began to implore Him earnestly not to send them out of the country.
11 Now there was a large herd of swine feeding nearby on the mountain.
12 The demons implored Him, saying, "Send us into the swine so that we may enter them."
13 Jesus gave them permission. And coming out, the unclean spirits entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea.
I think Satan and demons are real beings and that's the way scripture presents them.
Your "satan as metaphor" and now "satan as decision" sounds remotely plausible when dealing with humans but do pigs understand human metaphors and decisions?
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/22/2003 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Isn't DEATH and DYING (a process of deterioration) a "natural" life process?
NO.
I think that both Orthodox and Reformed traditions recognize death asn an after-the-fact "mercy"; but also also being entirely "un-natural." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/22/2003 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika
I think Satan and demons are real beings and that's the way scripture presents them.
Your "satan as metaphor" and now "satan as decision" sounds remotely plausible when dealing with humans but do pigs understand human metaphors and decisions?
Iconoclast
The following is from a previous post I did that deals with this issue. Again, metaphors are conceptual structures that help us deal with real phenomenon. “Time is a river” is a metaphor for time. This doesn’t mean that time is not real. But it certainly isn’t LITERALLY a river. Nor does the future REALLY exist literally like the upstream part of the river exists. Likewise “Satan is an entity” is a metaphor. This does not mean that Satan is not real but it also doesn’t mean that Satan is a LITERAL entity like you or I. Satan is a force / a pattern (the pattern of this world) that behaves like an entity. Inflation is an entity is also a metaphor in common usage but no one actually believes that Inflation is a literal entity.
Here is the prior post that I believe makes much more sense as an interpretation of the scripture you brought up:
Trosie:
I'd be interested to understand how one might square the following scripture passages with the Satan as a mere metaphor idea:
Mark 5:1-17 The Healing of a Demon-possessed Man
Matt. 12:27-28 "And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then they will be judges. But if I drive them out by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."
2Corin. 11:14 "for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
James 2:19 "You believe that there is a God. Good! Even demons believe that and shudder."
Iconoclast:
“Mere metaphor” suggests that there is no power or underlying reality to something. I am not saying this. I do not in any way deny the experiences people have had related to demons. I totally believe these accounts. I do not however believe the interpretations are literal truth – as though we can even know completely what the literal truth is. (We do know who the Truth is) This does not however mean that these interpretations are not useful and effective. They are clearly very effective. When someone casts out a “demon” and the “demon” possessed person is healed – that is real – as real as it gets – and all that matters. If the model works – use it.
My goal in this dialogue (search for truth) is not to invalidate the usefulness of the current model but simply to highlight it as a model (or "map" in TNT / NLP speak) and seek additional models.
Here is one possible underlying reality that can square with the metaphorical language being used in these passages:
Satan (Hebrew: ha-satan – The Adversary – as in a court) is really referring to that “part” of us that is against God and each other. The part that accuses God and each other of causing us and our loved ones pain.
Some facts:
“Demon” comes from the Greek word “diamon” – which means “unseen agent” – interestingly enough the Greek word does NOT entail good or bad in its meaning – it is neutral in this respect – the Unix operating system uses the word “daemon” for system services that operate in the background.
“Angel” comes from the Greek word “angelos” which simply means messenger.
95% of our “thought” is unconscious. – Cognitive Science
The metaphors for Self are multi-“selved”. We have a “True Self” that is our “essence” (conscious part in control) and we have multiple other “selves” that are parts of us. “I was beside myself.” “That was the rum talking, not me.” This comes from the book “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Anderson.
Jesus said: If you have enough faith you can say to this mountain “jump into the sea” and it will be done for you. (We have a lot of power at our disposal depending on our faith)
Alternate interpretations based on these “meanings”:
Mark 5:1-17 The Healing of a Demon-possessed Man
The man had “legion” demons in him: his unconscious was totally fragmented into multiple “personalities” and they were ANGRY! We all have heard the stories of people who acting out of their “unconscious” passion have been able to lift cars. No one suggests that this comes from the power of a “demon”. Hypnotists have also learned how to actually talk to the multiple parts of a person’s unconscious. And these multiple parts are not necessarily malevolent or even angry. There are documented cases of a part of a person’s unconscious rationally protecting the conscious self from knowledge that would be damaging.
One more point that I find very interesting in this story. The demons asked to go into the pigs. Jesus let them. The pigs, ostensibly under demon control, killed themselves thus giving no home to the demons. Now one might argue that the demons were stupid or that Jesus tricked them and then Jesus caused the pigs to go into the sea. However I would like to offer another explanation. The multiple fragmented parts of the self were the very, very angry parts that also were accusing the “True Self” of being unworthy: “what have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God.” Notice also what Jesus said: “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit.” This language presupposes that the fragmented angry, accusing parts of the man are simply parts, they are NOT the True Self, they are NOT the man. Jesus is OK with the man – but not with the angry, accusing parts – they have to go. The True Self hears this and also hears Jesus commanding these other parts to leave – the man can now let go of the anger he has been affirmed as being OK and in control – but wait the angry parts are also part of the man – they are also part of himself. They have served him and shouldn’t or can’t just be let go of – they must have their final angry expression and therefore justification. That final angry expression is for the man in his intense unconscious passion to send the pigs to their death. Jesus in his mercy is OK with this expression of anger.
Call me crazy (and I am sure you will  ) but when my brother died a few months ago after a few days I got really, really angry. Coincidentally there was a thunderstorm that day. At a certain point when I was at my most intense seething deep anger there was a rash of lightning all around me such as I have never experienced before. And I am talking sub-second thunder and 20-30 thunderbolts in rapid succession. I absolutely felt my energy going into that display – I felt one with it – and it felt really, really good – to just express my anger in such a powerful way – and I thank God for that experience.
Matt. 12:27-28 "And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then they will be judges. But if I drive them out by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."
Demons = “unseen” agents. Notice he pre-supposes that they also “drive out demons”.
2Corin. 11:14 "for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light."
For The Adversary / Accuser part of ourselves masqerades as a messenger of open dialogue and communication. When really we just want to win because in our distress we somehow believe our survival depends on it. We then unconsciously (sometime consciously) attack the other person. This separates us and is the opposite of Loving one another.
James 2:19 "You believe that there is a God. Good! Even demons believe that and shudder."
Your “True Self” (conscious part of you “in control”) believes that there is a God. Good! Even your unconscious parts believe that and shudder. There is a scripture somewhere in Jeremiah (I think) about how now God's law will be implanted into us (our unconscious will know him - and yes - shudder).
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/22/2003 6:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | Wait - you mean to tell me we're not operating with complete information? We don't all know the absolute truth? What a breath of fresh air to hear someone say it? Thank you! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/23/2003 2:35 AM (GMT -6) | | | Satan is a fallen angelic being, messenger, correct? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/23/2003 4:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
If there was no such thing as epistemic distance then we would know God in His full power and glory and would not be able to choose against Him. Thus we could not really choose to love Him.
Epistemic distance means that we are operating without complete information.
OK. Just play along with me for a second, Iconoclast.
Let's say that there WAS an actual being called Satan, who WAS an angelic being in Heaven with God?
If this was so, how much epistemic distance do you think would have existed for such a being? Surely, that being would have had a MUCH greater perception of God that humans ever could, correct?
This is something that I've thought about for some time. People want to say that epistemic distance is necessary for sin to take place. But HOW MUCH is necessary? If it's true that there was a BEING named Satan, and this being really were an extremely powerful angel of God, then it would seem that THIS being would KNOW ENOUGH about God to know God’s power and glory…but yet Satan STILL obviously chose against God anyway.
If ANYONE would know about God’s full power and glory, you would think it would be ANGELS. But if biblical testimony is correct, some of them still rebelled. So, what does this say?
I tend to think that they operated by PRINCIPLE rather than rationality, per se. In other words, doing something like…
“Yeah, He’s God all right…but screw it. We’re gonna rebel ANYWAY. We don’t like the way God’s doing things.”
I’d have a hard time believing that these beings REALLY thought that they could somehow conquer the creator. If so, I would charge this to delusion rather than epistemic distance.
I suppose this is what I’m getting at. I think that the argument of epistemic distance for answering the question of why God is not more obvious is BOGUS AS HELL. It doesn’t work. Not if one wants to really believe in the whole “Satan as fallen angel” thing. It could definitely be that a being could KNOW God’s power and glory and STILL choose against God.
Think about it.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/23/2003 6:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Tim
Satan is a fallen angelic being, messenger, correct?
Iconoclast
Yes, exactly.
Except, I would argue that this is metaphorical speech.
There are really two coherent but unfortunately entangled metaphors operating here.
1. “ha satan” (literally: the accuser / adversary) is an entity.
2. “lucifer” (literally: the light bearer) is an entity.
They are entangled because we literally believe that Lucifer IS Satan.
Biblically the connection between “lucifer” and “ha satan” is tenuous at best. I would argue that the connection REALLY comes about because the metaphors for them are coherent.
I have been arguing that Satan (accusation / adversarial judgement) comes about because of epistemic distance.
Lucifer an angel (“angelos” - literally: message bearer) is God’s light bearer. This is metaphorical speech in my opinion for God’s transparent communication (and therefore communion) with us. Lucifer fell which means that this communication stopped being transparent – the message bearer who communicated God’s information stopped communicating that information. This is what I call epistemic distance.
Now, let’s see how these metaphors are entangled:
Lucifer falling = reduced messaging from God = epistemic distance.
Satan = accuser / adversary = destroyer.
Accuser / adversary (Satan) can only come about because of epistemic distance (Lucifer falling).
Thus, we conclude that Satan (the accuser) IS a fallen Lucifer (light bearer / angel of light).
Or,
A fallen Lucifer (epistemic distance) leads to Satan (entropy (destroyer), accuser, adversary, god of this age).
Fundamentally what I am trying to argue in this thread is that to confuse these two metaphors with literal reality leads us to a false conclusion.
To believe that Lucifer and Satan are literal entities that are one and the same actual literal beings leads to the false conclusion that “natural evil” is EVIL Which is to say that Entropy = Evil.
The metaphors are coherent because epistemic distance leads to the ABILITY (or rather - inevitability) to accuse / be an adversary. Thus we connect Lucifer to Satan.
However this connection of Lucifer = Satan LITERALLY leads us to the conclusion that epistemic distance (which we experience as entropy) IS evil.
Let’s look at our very language to see how we have falsely entangled this in our conceptual framework:
The word “evil” in Hebrew is “ra”. Words in Hebrew have a denotative meaning a connotative meaning and a symbolic meaning. In Greek the word for “evil” is “kakos”. So what are these meanings?
Hebrew: Ra =
1. Denotative: Loud/noisy
2. Connotative: Pain
3. Symbolic: Evil
Greek: Kakos = Evil - This is the root of the word cacophony.
Notice the meanings of “loud/noisy” and “cacophony”. I would suggest that these come from our experience of entropy which is simply order to disorder or information loss. “Noise in the system" is a measure of information loss.
Then look at how we have entangled information loss (noise, cacophony) with “pain”. Information loss leads to pain which we then entangle with our symbolic understanding of EVIL.
We experience entropy as pain and then think of it as EVIL which, we falsely conclude, must be someone being against us (we accuse and judge). But WHO is against us? WE us accuse and judge God, and each other for causing us pain (thus WE are Satan). Also, notice that “pain” is the same thing as NOT having the very best – someone withholding something from us that they should (if they are not against us) give us. This is the fundamental meaning of what we see happening in the Garden of Eden. Eve (through her subconscious agent the serpent) questions and then concludes that God is withholding the knowledge of good and evil BECAUSE He doesn’t want them to be wise like He is. BECAUSE He is withholding some gift that a loving God would, of course, give to her. This is Satan or EVIL itself – accusing God in a lack of information environment of being against her. It IS evil itself BECAUSE it immediately leads to (and really IS) to separate and thus disunite with God. It is to CHOOSE against God because we falsely conclude that God is against us.
The REALITY is that entropy is NOT evil but is a necessary aspect of the gift that God has given us – Life – the ability to Love. To see it as EVIL is to judge the giver, reject the giver and thus reject the gift. It is spiritual or eternal DEATH.
What is truly EVIL is to accuse and become an adversary of God and others. This is why we correctly understand that Satan is PURE evil – because Satan IS accusation / adversarial judgement which is the same as disunity or separation from God.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/23/2003 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Iconoclast
God told Adam and Eve that “IN THE DAY that you eat of the fruit you shall surely die.” But Adam and Eve didn’t physically die that day. They spiritually died. They became disunited with God and THIS is the death that is the enemy. Physical death is the death of THIS (spiritual) death which mean the hope of LIFE.
Thus physical death is NOT the enemy, disunity from God is the enemy which is really our own accusation of Him, which comes about only because of epistemic distance, which is required for us to actually choose to love.
Icon's half right on tha6t part about in the Garden. He is correct that they didn't physically die (all the way, anyways) on that day. But that's not what the passage says anywhooo... The passage says, "That day it shall be true that: 'You shall surely die.'" And THAT certainly was a true statement, and DID come to pass that day. (If you didn't cathc it, then re-read.)
So, the issue does not pass on to find other kinds of death. But Icon IS correct about that too. But the two are not divorced from each other.
Death certainly IS the enemy. Too.
www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm ORIGINAL SIN ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL, by John S. Romanides
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/23/2003 1:03 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
OK. Just play along with me for a second, Iconoclast.
Iconoclast
Sounds like fun. Hey, I just listened to your sermon Meph – great stuff! You have a really engaging style too. I would have liked to hear some more gooospelll preaching of course - that was a hoot.
MephEternal
Let's say that there WAS an actual being called Satan, who WAS an angelic being in Heaven with God?
If this was so, how much epistemic distance do you think would have existed for such a being? Surely, that being would have had a MUCH greater perception of God that humans ever could, correct?
Iconoclast
You seem to be suggesting that less epistemic distance should result in less of a propensity to go against God. And that since Satan (literal entity) went against God with MUCH less epistemic distance than us that therefore we should question whether epistemic distance is an issue at all in our ability to choose love and therefore our ability to go against God.
I would like to suggest that the epistemic distance necessary to go against God (and therefore choose love) is a quantum function. We either have enough epistemic distance to not KNOW for ourselves that God totally and completely loves us – is totally FOR us or we don’t. There is no half-way measure. I would even suggest that the closer one is to knowing the exquisite control that God actually has the more one would question whether God is actually for us when we experience entropy (pain). But notice that the key question that is a binary function is do we KNOW FOR SURE (ZERO epistemic distance) that God is for us or do we NOT know for sure (SOME epistemic distance).
What does it mean, “every knee shall bow?” Doesn’t this mean that when we have zero epistemic distance we DO God’s will and not necessarily out of choice? Therefore some epistemic distance is required to go against God’s will.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/23/2003 1:21 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
Will entropy, PHYSICAL death, and PHYSICAL dying (biological deterioration. Remember, even cells die.) ever cease to exist, Iconoclast? If so, HOW and WHEN?
Iconoclast
Let’s look at the definition of Eternal Life:
Hmmm…where can we find a good definition of Eternal Life?
I know! How about.
From Dwayne Polk’s sermon:
Eternal Life is … continuing intimate knowledge of God in Christ by the Spirit.
John 17:3:
“And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
Sounds like eternal life is when we no longer have epistemic distance from God. When there is never a question of whether God is totally FOR us because we are in “continuing intimate” contact with Him – when we are actually and completely immersed in the continual experience of God’s love for us.
Now, this does not necessarily mean that there won’t be worlds we could go to where there IS epistemic distance. It doesn’t even mean that we might not just do what Jesus did and submit ourselves to an epistemically distant “body” in said world. Who knows? (would that be the opposite of a “vacation”?)
We may even actually have an epistemically distant body that is subject to entropy but that through our eternal life, intimate connection with God we are constantly pouring negative entropy into it. In other words, we are constantly repairing any information loss damage. This would NOT mean that the cells wouldn’t die but that the new cells would never take on any information loss (genetic damage) because we would know (zero epistemic distance) that there was a defect and then repair it.
All sorts of possibilities!
How would you answer this question?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/23/2003 7:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Nice way to use my definition, Iconoclast. Glad you were blessed by the sermon. Heh. 
How would I answer the question? If I were to posit what you are, I’d have to say that physical death and dying are parts of the natural order of life…and that they would NOT every cease to exist…until complete non-existence ever became the case. You know, when the universe bottoms out. There’s no real context that you have for saying that any type of END will be put to physical death and dying.
But I do…
See, there was a REASON behind my three part description. It’s intentionally trinitarian, to fully encapsulate the “already, but not yet”. Continuing intimate knowledge of God [the Father] in Christ by the Spirit. The Spirit does a number of things in this whole thing…including RAISE US TO PHYSICAL LIFE even after physical death as it did Jesus! The Spirit not only makes the communion possible in this present life, but also extends the TEMPORAL aspect of said communion by way of resurrection transformation, removing the possiblity of non-existence. In this, physical death and dying are ENDED, particularly at the Consummation of All Things.
********************************
Iconoclast:
quote:
You seem to be suggesting that less epistemic distance should result in less of a propensity to go against God. And that since Satan (literal entity) went against God with MUCH less epistemic distance than us that therefore we should question whether epistemic distance is an issue at all in our ability to choose love and therefore our ability to go against God.
I would like to suggest that the epistemic distance necessary to go against God (and therefore choose love) is a quantum function. We either have enough epistemic distance to not KNOW for ourselves that God totally and completely loves us – is totally FOR us or we don’t. There is no half-way measure. I would even suggest that the closer one is to knowing the exquisite control that God actually has the more one would question whether God is actually for us when we experience entropy (pain). But notice that the key question that is a binary function is do we KNOW FOR SURE (ZERO epistemic distance) that God is for us or do we NOT know for sure (SOME epistemic distance).
What does it mean, “every knee shall bow?” Doesn’t this mean that when we have zero epistemic distance we DO God’s will and not necessarily out of choice? Therefore some epistemic distance is required to go against God’s will.
So in other words, you are making this a binary function. Such that ANY UNCERTAINTY about God’s intentions or whatever is ENOUGH epistemic distance for sin to take place. Meaning that it wouldn’t matter if you were 99.99999% sure about God’s nature or 0.000009% sure. Anything less that COMPLETELY ASSURANCE of God’s nature makes for the sin capability.
I’d agree with this. What I would disagree with is that the amount of epistemic distance doesn’t affect certainty levels. This seems to go against what we experience. It seems that, when we operate RATIONALLY, we make our actions upon that which we feel we have GREATER reasons to trust as being true. No one is 100% sure of anything, if they will admit it to themselves. Nonetheless, choices of genuine conviction are made largely according to the principle of belief conservation.
The MORE epistemic distance, it seems that more a REASONABLE person would have warrants for disbelieving. The amount of epistemic distance DOES matter. And this is part of my point with the epistemic distance theodicy argument. Some theologians want to say that the reason why God is so obscure in our world and hard to locate is because if God were to truly show us MORE of who He is, then now one would NOT follow God. But this is baloney. If Satan can see as much of God as HE did, and still fall, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to say that God is purposely making Godself more obscure so that people genuinely have a choice.
See what I mean?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/24/2003 6:36 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal
The MORE epistemic distance, it seems that more a REASONABLE person would have warrants for disbelieving. The amount of epistemic distance DOES matter. And this is part of my point with the epistemic distance theodicy argument. Some theologians want to say that the reason why God is so obscure in our world and hard to locate is because if God were to truly show us MORE of who He is, then now one would NOT follow God. But this is baloney. If Satan can see as much of God as HE did, and still fall, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to say that God is purposely making Godself more obscure so that people genuinely have a choice.
Iconoclast
It isn't just a question of believing whether God exists. It is fundamentally a question of believing that God unconditionally loves us, is FOR us, even though we experience pain or experience less than we feel a loving God SHOULD give us.
Thus the equation has two variables:
EDLove = Epistemic distance of continually experiencing God's unconditional love.
EDPower = Epistemic distance of knowing God's exquisite control over all things.
The problem is that the less EDPower with the SAME EDLove the more "evidence" one has that God is withholding something good that He could be giving or is not preventing pain that He could be preventing.
Thus if Satan (totally hypothetically speaking of course) had the same EDLove that we have (the basic quantum amount) but had way less EDPower then he would have MORE concern about whether God was really for him. Thus, there is actually more force pushing him to fall.
This explains why God makes himself obscure to us. EDLove is a quantum amount (God is simply NOT forcing us to experience his love for us directly) but EDPower can be shifted quite a bit by how much He chooses to reveal Himself. He chooses to reveal Himself less than more so that we can have a better chance of really thinking through why life requires us to feel pain - and to ultimately recognize that it is only pain. At which point, it goes away and turns into joy.
Eternal Life is NOT knowing God in His power. It is CONTINUING INTIMATE contact with God. It is directly experiencing His love for us.
thanks,
Iconoclast
P.S. "Satan is an entity" is a metaphor. Satan is not a literal being. "Natural evil" is not EVIL but is a necessary aspect of epistemic distance which is a necessary aspect of being able to choose love.
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 8/25/2003 2:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Information loss is the prime culprit behind 'natural evil', or is it information gain  . . .
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow . . . the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
 I am Borg. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 8/28/2003 8:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Sorry its taken me so long to find this thread Iconoclast. Interesting post. Several points:
1) While I have in the past offered Hick's "epistemic distance" as one variable that explains why God isn't more obvious, I'm not sure it has to be PRESCRIBED for there to be morally significant choices. It may be that our sense of "epistemic distance" IS part of our choice to go away from God.
Analogy: A husband may know perfectly -- have no "epistemic distance" -- that he should be faithful to his wife, and yet, BY HIS OWN CHOICE, become foggy about this and eventually choose to cheat on her. IN short, it may be that what we call "epistemic distance" is SELF INDUCED DENIAL. I don't see that God has to PRESCRIBE IT ON US.
2) Even IF God does have to prescribe it for our choices to be morally significant, I do not see that it has to involve entropy. Why think this? I can imagine many scenarios where God is less than coercively obvious, yet the world is without natural evil.
3) I am certainly not BLAMING GOD (playing ha satan) with my assessment of "natural evil" as being the result of free agents. To the contrary, I am offering it as a way of NOT blaming God for "natural evils." In my assessment, pinning "natural evils" on spirits (as well as humans) is no more playing ha satan than is pinning "moral evils" on human agents.
If a man kills an innocent man with a rock, we rightly hold him, not the rock, responsible. Are we buying into "the legal view" when we do so? If not, how am I buying into "the legal view" by blaming spirits (and humans), not nature, with my assessment of natural evil?
4) There is, of course, also the Scriptural data. Genesis suggests animals and humans were originally meant to be vegetarian (Gen. 1:31). Pain in nature came as part of the curse of the fall (Gen. 2). Death is said to be the result of the fall (Romans 5), yet death is simply entropy. Indeed, Satan is said to hold the keys of death (Heb. 2:14). So, I take it that death, at least as we experience it now, is not "natural." And since death is simply the result of entropy, I take entropy to be "unnatural." And if the second law of thermodynamics can be understood as corrupted by the fall, what law can we consider immune to corruption?
5). I can imagine a possible world in which entropy didn't occur, though it would look very different from ours (obviously). I can imagine a world where all sentient beings lived in harmony (lion laying down with the lamb deal) instead of reflecting the nature of "a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (referring to the devil, 1Pet. 5). I can imagine a world that reflected the love of God rather than "nature red in tooth and claw." And yet, I can imagine this world still involving morally responsible choices.
Once humans, the guardians of the earth, misuse their freedom, I can no longer imagine this world. I can see it degenerating step by step into entropy. And this, my friend, is precisely what I think happened to us -- and nature.
Let me know what you think.
Blessings
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/30/2003 7:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc
While I have in the past offered Hick's "epistemic distance" as one variable that explains why God isn't more obvious, I'm not sure it has to be PRESCRIBED for there to be morally significant choices. It may be that our sense of "epistemic distance" IS part of our choice to go away from God.
Analogy: A husband may know perfectly -- have no "epistemic distance" -- that he should be faithful to his wife, and yet, BY HIS OWN CHOICE, become foggy about this and eventually choose to cheat on her. IN short, it may be that what we call "epistemic distance" is SELF INDUCED DENIAL. I don't see that God has to PRESCRIBE IT ON US.
Iconoclast
I am not familiar with Hick’s “epistemic distance”. I do not know how he defined it.
What I mean by “espistemic distance” is that there are “hidden regions” where we CANNOT know what is going on. More specifically I mean that we cannot EXPERIENCE what is going on in that “hidden region”. The concept of a hidden region comes from physics. A black hole is an example of a hidden region because no light can escape from it. Any object that is continually accelerating also experiences a hidden region (or rather doesn’t experience some region that we then call a hidden region) because light from that region can never reach it.
This means that there is a theoretical limit to what humans can know. We are living in a universe of limited information. This is a direct result of the speed of light being limited to c. God is light. The light we have from God has been slowed down. Lucifer (the light bearer) has fallen and no longer bears God’s light directly. Thus, we live in a world of hidden regions.
What is clearly a hidden region to us is God’s heart and God’s glory. We do NOT directly experience God’s heart or God’s glory. God has TOLD us via His word what His heart is and what His glory is. God has also revealed to us His heart and His glory via His son who entered into this world of hidden regions. But we still do not directly experience His heart or His glory.
I recently heard a really good sermon about what Eternal Life IS. MephEternal defined Eternal Life as “continuing intimate” direct knowledge of God. (paraphrased)
I would say that this means the continuing intimate direct experience of God’s heart (love for us) and God’s glory.
I would also add that Eternal Life is this direct experience of God that is CHOSEN. And that Eternal Death is this direct experience of God that is NOT CHOSEN.
It seems self-evident to me that humans require “epistemic distance” from this direct experience of God in order to choose love.
For some more quick thoughts on this let me re-post this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TGB
About Ananias and Saphira, I’m not so sure God was not behind it. How about the guy getting zapped and killed when he touched the Ark in the OT? No human mediator was even present so we can’t say God’s human representative was doing something God wouldn’t do.
MephEternal
(Good anticipation, by the way. I was gonna do the “God playing Zeus” thing next) The issue is that SOME PEOPLE seem to think that God doesn’t DO stuff like take peoples lives for stealing from God…or killing people via LIGHTNING BOLT just for trying to stop that Ark from falling to the ground.
Iconoclast
Fellas, fellas, why so literal? There is deep metaphysical truth behind what is happening here. Why see it as the angry God being jealous that men did not follow his detailed instructions so He zaps them with lightning? Can you even imagine Jesus doing this? “Excuse me but you called me ‘good sir’ and I AM THE LORD.” Zap you’re dead.
Exd 40:3 And thou shalt put therein the ark of the testimony, and cover the ark with the vail.
This is just getting at the reality that the ark is the ‘ark of the testimony’. That the ark is the place where the epistemic distance from God is much less than elsewhere. It is where God’s light shines greater. This is because this is DIRECT from God – NOT filtered as much as everything else. This is God’s word in a more direct (less epistemically distant) way. And IT has power by ITSELF. This is a metaphysical issue. Why cover the ark with a vail? To increase the epistemic distance of this power of more direct testimony.
Lev 16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy [place] within the vail before the mercy seat, which [is] upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.
And we can see that here. This is no different than God saying, “DON’T touch the stove or you will get burned.” This is not a judgement issue. Like God REALLY wants us to do some bizarre ritual in order to approach Him. Again, this is simply metaphysical reality. Choosing love REQUIRES epistemic distance BECAUSE otherwise we DIE on the spot. Eternal Life - “continuing intimate” direct contact with God requires that we have chosen love else we experience it as death – we DIE on the spot.
And THIS is what I think happened with the two guys who touched the ark in order to keep it from falling to the ground. They touch the stove and NATURALLY (metaphysical truth) got BURNED.
I assume no one would argue that God zapped them because they broke the law – a simple judgement thing – because their INTENT was not bad – their intent was GOOD. They were trying to protect the ark of the covenant! Moreover, don’t you think this was an AUTOMATIC response? Something of deep and meaningful value, something they REVERED was about to fall and they AUTOMATICALLY tried to help. In other words – out of GOOD character – they unconsciously responded to HELP out. And God zaps them for it!?!? No way.
So, I assume that you would argue that God’s GLORY somehow required this ritual behavior and that since this basically metaphysically meaningless RITUAL was transgressed God just HAD to protect His glory lest someone thinks God is not sovereign. To me this is a HUMAN idea of glory and not at all what I see as God’s definition of Glory.
I think the only consistent interpretation of this passage is that a METAPHYSICAL principle was involved here.
The metaphysical principle that too little epistemic distance from God results in instant death. I would also suggest that the amount of epistemic distance required is proportional to exactly how much we have progressed in choosing to love God.
Another example of this is when Moses asked to see God’s face.
<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<
So, Doc, does this definition and these thoughts help? If it is not self-evident to you that this is true please say so and I will go more in depth on this.
On the assumption that it is not clear whether this kind of epistemic distance is a CONSEQUENCE of the fall let me quickly just suggest that I think it can be demonstrated that Adam and Eve had this kind of epistemice distance BEFORE the fall. Because if they did not then how could there be a misunderstanding of “Did God say?” or a misunderstanding of what God meant when He said “In the DAY you eat of it you shall surely die”?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
| 45 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:49 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 |
|
|