 |
| 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/12/2004 11:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | So God makes the choice for all people?
I smell something fishy in the Garden, was Eve’s choice a set-up? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/12/2004 2:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John: When the Bible says "God cannot lie," etc., it need not necessarily mean that He is some kind of automaton, acting rather like a "holy machine" of some kind that can do nothing BUT act holily. In my view, there's a very good reason why Scripture says God "can't" lie--Because His holy CHARACTER is such that every moral sensibility He has is positively repulsed by even the THOUGHT of doing evil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: I still don't see how this is different from compatibilism. Isn't compatibilism the belief that people act according to their strongest impulse/desire? And if so, isn't that what you're contending for in the case of God and Christ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John: While it is similar, from what I understand, compatibilism denies the power of contrary moral choice, while my view affirms it. It is not the case that in my view God "can't help" choosing as He does, while in compatibilism and determinism, as far as I understand those views, God does not have the power of contrary moral choice at all. In my view, God could sin if He willed to, but He simply wills not to.
I guess my problem with that explanation follows from my idea of what a LFW choice IS. To me, such a choice assumes two or more conflicting and mutually exclusive desires or impulses, one of which must be chosen. So by that definition, If God HAS NO impulse or desire to lie or do evil, it is literally true that He CAN NOT lie or do evil. In other words, there is NOTHING in His holy sensibilities that would give rise to such an impluse/desire. No desire, no choice to be made.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/13/2004 3:39 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
As I understand LFW, all that is necessary are two contrary objects of choice. It is compatibilism, not libertarianism, that defines choice by the strongest desire.
It doesn't seem obvious to me that compatibilism would deny that the strongest desire wins out over NON-contrary desires. Thus, compatibilism, too, could posit two or more contrary objects, they would just say that the strongest desire prevails regardless. To me, LFW makes sense only if the person is a final cause that can GENERATE an impulse by his/her own mind - an act of pure self-discipline.
But God, who cannot be tempted by EVILS would never be in a situation to need to exercise discipline, thus. His discipline is exercised when He chooses to suffer for a long-term goal. For then, He truly senses the contrary objects (punishing immediately vs. forebearing), but chooses one over the other based on the "joy set before Him."
But Christ could experience contrary objects the same way. He could hunger and still have reason to refuse to eat. He could wish the cup of suffering would pass but still prefer to please the Father. So the question is, "was Christ's temptation such because He merely had the ability to experience suffering from obeying, or because He had to actually exercise LFW self-discipline to prevail over desire that would have resulted in disobedience?"
Obviously, desires to eat and avoid crucifixion are not intrinsically evil desires - but they were related to obedience in the particular circumstances that are pertinent to our consideration. But I think Doc would argue that Christ's STRONGEST desire was to please the Father and, thus, Christ did not actually HAVE to exercise LFW self-discipline to obey - His strongest desire simply prevailed. This, I think, is how Doc escapes the problem of whether there was a risk involved in the incarnation/passion. Is that how you understand Doc? If so, how is Doc's compatibilistic view different than yours in a purely pshycological and anthropological sense? I'm still confused because of the point in my first sentence in this post.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Cottonman
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 16
| Posted 11/13/2004 10:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Albert Einstein
quote:
Originally posted by Cottonman
Now, what was your question? (minus the banality)
My question is simply how can OVT escape resorting to the greater good defense.
Because people distinguish between being born with a handicap (unfair) and with a handicap they made for themselves (fair).
I have just spoken with an expert on these matters. He recently co-edited a book that has direct import to the subject at hand. This "expert" completely disavows the Reformed view. Nevertheless, when asked how OVT can escape being coined a greater good defense, he simply said that it cannot and obviously so. The free-will theodicy, he claims merely has a differing definition as to what the greater good is. Helm claims the greater good is the certain glory of God. OVT claims the greater good is the possibility of love. My questions have been aswered.
Let me insert a comment: which view seems to have greater prima facie support? On one hand a young girl is raped because God deemed the mere possibility of love as worth the risk. On the other, a young girl is raped because God will most certainly bring the consequences of it to rebound for His glory. The latter is holding much more promise to me at this point.
Unless anyone has new arguments or new evidence, I am done with this thread. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/13/2004 2:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Cottonman,
quote:
I have just spoken with an expert on these matters. He recently co-edited a book that has direct import to the subject at hand. This "expert" completely disavows the Reformed view. Nevertheless, when asked how OVT can escape being coined a greater good defense, he simply said that it cannot and obviously so. The free-will theodicy, he claims merely has a differing definition as to what the greater good is. Helm claims the greater good is the certain glory of God. OVT claims the greater good is the possibility of love. My questions have been aswered.
Let me insert a comment: which view seems to have greater prima facie support? On one hand a young girl is raped because God deemed the mere possibility of love as worth the risk. On the other, a young girl is raped because God will most certainly bring the consequences of it to rebound for His glory. The latter is holding much more promise to me at this point.
Unless anyone has new arguments or new evidence, I am done with this thread.
As an open theist of a different perspective than Doc etal, I don't think OVT has anything to do with a "greater good" philosophy. I believe the view defended by Gordon Olson etal concerning God's nescience of contingencies. But contrary to Olson etal, I disagree with a purely Arminian view of soteriology for biblical reasons.
Thus, when God said it repented Him that He had made man, I accept that as a true statement and allow that God will yet indeed attain glory from this creation since He is continuing it (possibly because He will not be trumped of His purpose by mere creatures). But he receives no glory from sin or evil itself. His glory will be from both showing mercy AND wrath.
Sin in and of itself is repulsive to God, so that He must endure it to get to that time where He can show His wrath. In the meanwhile He shows sovereign mercy also. He will ultimately be glorified by both, but that doesn't change the fact that He regreted the way it turned out, for He had preferred that there had been no sin or disobedience in the first place. Indeed, He and Christ now must suffer (by forebearing sin) to get glory, whereas otherwise They would have received thanksgiving and glory WITHOUT suffering.
This is the only way I can make perspicuous sense out of all the verses and our own moral intuition. I try to recognize the full truth of God's benevolence AND His demand/desire for glory from His creatures. If you find that this view portrays God as retarded, then we can agree to disagree, but a purely Calvinistic view of God seems to be completely counter-intuitive to me.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/13/2004 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
As I understand LFW, all that is necessary are two contrary objects of choice. It is compatibilism, not libertarianism, that defines choice by the strongest desire.
It doesn't seem obvious to me that compatibilism would deny that the strongest desire wins out over NON-contrary desires. Thus, compatibilism, too, could posit two or more contrary objects, they would just say that the strongest desire prevails regardless. To me, LFW makes sense only if the person is a final cause that can GENERATE an impulse by his/her own mind - an act of pure self-discipline.
The problem, as I see it, with the idea that LFW essentially amounts to an ability to generate an impulse is that it still leaves us no more MORAL agents than a dog is. To fuse choice with desire is to deny the possibility of intelligent, rational choice. One can desire/want something 'til the cows come home, but until one makes a conscious CHOICE, all his desires will do is bring him sheer frustration.
quote:
But God, who cannot be tempted by EVILS would never be in a situation to need to exercise discipline, thus.
Right now, I think the best explanation as to why God (the Father) cannot be tempted by evil is His perfect ability to see right through any and all temptations in conjunction with His ultimate devotion to benevolence of purpose in all that He does; therefore, He always, without fail, perfectly well knows the most benevolent choice to make, and so chooses.
quote:
His discipline is exercised when He chooses to suffer for a long-term goal. For then, He truly senses the contrary objects (punishing immediately vs. forebearing), but chooses one over the other based on the "joy set before Him."
I think I agree with this; however, we have now shifted into how Christ experienced temptations during his ministry in the flesh on earth, which to me is a different category, as Christ was not in possession of omniscience in the time between his conception and his resurrection. Also, Christ assumed fallen human nature (which is not, in my view, inherently sinful in nature), though it would have had an effect on his cognitive abilities as well as his experience of biological urges to do that which He knew to be unlawful.
quote:
But Christ could experience contrary objects the same way. He could hunger and still have reason to refuse to eat. He could wish the cup of suffering would pass but still prefer to please the Father. So the question is, "was Christ's temptation such because He merely had the ability to experience suffering from obeying, or because He had to actually exercise LFW self-discipline to prevail over desire that would have resulted in disobedience?"
I think his suffering and his temptations, while in some instances connected, are distinct categories. I do believe he had to actually exercise LFW self-discipline to prevail over some natural human desires--for instance, when he resisted the urge to eat (hunger) when tempted by the devil to abuse his authority as the Son of God.
quote:
Obviously, desires to eat and avoid crucifixion are not intrinsically evil desires - but they were related to obedience in the particular circumstances that are pertinent to our consideration. But I think Doc would argue that Christ's STRONGEST desire was to please the Father and, thus, Christ did not actually HAVE to exercise LFW self-discipline to obey - His strongest desire simply prevailed. This, I think, is how Doc escapes the problem of whether there was a risk involved in the incarnation/passion. Is that how you understand Doc? If so, how is Doc's compatibilistic view different than yours in a purely pshycological and anthropological sense? I'm still confused because of the point in my first sentence in this post.
Even a compatibilist will say that a person has free will psychologically. I'm not sure precisely what the point of "anthropological sense" with regard to this question is, unless you're referring to the difference between the Father's LFW and Jesus' LFW during his Incarnation and prior to His Resurrection.
But in any case, the biggest problem I see with compatibilistic free will is that it makes us slaves to our desires, denies the real power of intelligent, rational consideration of a choice, and in the end provides the perfect excuse imaginable for every child molester, rapist, serial murderer, and any other criminal (or sinner) that could ever exist--in compatibilism, they TRULY couldn't help themselves--their desires inexorably determined their choices in each and every case.
As to the possibility of Christ sinning, if we deny that possibility then it seems we must deny the encouragement we are supposed to receive from the scriptural references to how He overcame sin:
Heb 4:14 ¶ Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as {we are, yet} without sin.
Rev 3:21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
1 Cor 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/15/2004 3:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey all-
I’ve been out of town the whole weekend. Just got in.
Cotton says that unless anyone has “new” arguments, he’s done with the thread. I don’t have any new arguments that haven’t been mentioned before on this board, and if the analogy from our choice to bring children into the world and expose them to sin and suffering doesn’t cut it with some of you, then so be it. I find the analogy meaningful. In choosing to have children I chose to expose them to the possibilities of great goodness and love and great evil and suffering. That’s a risk I took. And I took it because I deem the value of goodness and love worth the risk. People I have shared this simple analogy with find it immediately meaningful and enlightening. It commends itself as quite reasonable. Frankly, every dismissal of this analogy I’ve heard on this thread thus far just sweeps it off the table without engaging it. There’s Cotton’s objection that giving humankind LFW is like giving a little child a deadly laser gun. This misses the sense in which LFW is developed over life (little children with LFW can’t lead pogroms) and it ignores the possible good and love that are only gotten to through LFW. If LFW doesn’t work, then I’d love to hear your explanation of love, namely, is love possible for us apart from LFW? I don’t think so. So dismiss LFW if you want, but offer something in its place.
About my being too pragmatic, Cotton and borg seem to be misusing my point. My point isn’t that providence isn’t an important issue and that different theodicies don’t make sense of life and suffering in different ways, or that we should take a nonchalant “Hey whatever” attitude. On the contrary, whatever my take on providence and evil is, it should be thought through and honestly engaged with by me. Your take on providence should be thoughtful and studied as well by you. Here’s my point again: No one theodicy can claim to be a CORE Christian belief that ranks alongside the core doctrines of the Triune God, the sinless character of Christ, his death, resurrection, etc. The discussion over free will and theodicy is a back-burner discussion in this sense. Given THAT, I don’t feel the sense of urgency to convince Cottonman of my view of free will as I do feel a sense of urgency to convince a unbeliever that God exists, loves her, and incarnated himself on her behalf in Jesus Christ. The point is not that I think one theodicy does as good as the next. I don’t. It’s just that Cotton seems pretty sure that LFW doesn’t exist. How much of my time and energy should I invest in convincing him otherwise?
When borg says: “And because TGB is willing to grant compatability, as long as it helps us love God and worship Him: there is a third option that stands: 3) God makes choice for all people, damned cannot complain because they wanted to be damned. (Fair)” he’s misapplying my point. That I think a believer can love and worship God as a Calvinist doesn’t mean I think Calvinism is right. As borg has just stated it, option (3) is unintelligible to me. I don’t even know what’s being claimed. It’s just babble. Unconditionally predetermined choices for which we are justly damned? What’s just been said? I don’t know.
So guys, try to keep it straight. All I mean to say is that if borg and Cottonman feel their faith and worship are undermined if LFW be the case, or if the future be partly open, and if that faith and worship make better sense TO THEM in a deterministic system, then if arguments for LFW don’t do it for them, what can I possible say but “Fine. God bless you!”? You guys are getting on my case for not getting on your case! That’s silly.
Cotton asks, “So the strict doctrines of the Puritans are not objectively wrong? That is a bold statement indeed. I'm not sure how far one can go with a strictly pragmatic view of theology.” I of course didn’t say I didn’t think some of these doctrines aren’t objectively right or wrong. I’m sure they are objectively one or the other. In the case of unconditional divine providence and election, I think they’re wrong. I just don’t think one HAS to HAS to HAS to be objectively right and know she’s objectively right ON THIS ISSUE to be able to love and worship God. Imagine that.
What’s so difficult for you guys to get about the relative importance of beliefs?
Cotton feels he’s “exposed” the analogy based on the risky business of having children for love’s sake to “…the same ‘errors’ that ["I"] ascribe to Reformed theology.” I’m amused. What errors does Cotton think I ascribe to Reformed theology that also apply to my analogy from risk? The Reformed system is a risk-free system.
Cotton thinks that I as an open theist must deny the ‘greater good’ theodicy. Why should I have to do that? Doc claims the warfare theodicy is not ‘greater good’ theodicy. I’m not so sure. Certainly the future’s being partly open is a cosmological question, pure and simple. But providence is another issue that not all open theists even have to agree one. I mean, look at Jeff, an open theist with a deterministic soteriology (which is where Doc was early on). though I think that's false, it's not false simply on "open theistic" grounds. But anyhow, if I affirm a version of the ‘greater good’ argument, what’s the problem? Cotton talked to an expert who felt the free-will theodicy is a ‘greater good’ theodicy that just defines the greater good differently that Calvinism. I don’t have a problem with that. If that’s the case, fine. So I’m a proponent of a version of the ‘greater good’ argument. As Cotton’s expert friend says, one has to define what the greater good is.
Lastly:
quote:
Cottonman: Let me insert a comment: which view seems to have greater prima facie support? On one hand a young girl is raped because God deemed the mere possibility of love as worth the risk. On the other, a young girl is raped because God will most certainly bring the consequences of it to rebound for His glory. The latter is holding much more promise to me at this point.
And the former is altogether more convincing to me. And here’s the question about the analogy from having kids for love’s sake that you still refuse to engage. You want to dismiss the first option as unlikely or meaningless. But it’s exactly what we do every time we have children. WE choose to bring kids into the world, expose them to the risks of an evil world (like murder and rape), and we do it because we deem the possibility of goodness and love worth the risk of their being raped (or their raping!). Under the first option you want to accuse God of being responsible for evil. But you don’t hold parents responsible for evils their children do. Why not? Unless you want to argue that parents stop having children, or that having children is just wrong, your objection to the first option, Cotton, fails. You simply can’t argue that choosing to expose someone to risks required by love doesn’t fly. It not only flies. It soars.
Now, on the second option you mention the glory God gets from the consequences of rape. I don’t have any problem affirming the glory God gets from the consequences of evil when those consequences in fact glorify him. But not all consequences glorify God. Sometimes the consequences of evil are greater evil, and I don’t find evil glorifying to God. But I do see that God works in response to evil to bring good out of it. That good comes out of it is not always a sure thing. But when it happens, it's a glorious thing.
I can even agree with Piper and other Calvinist who argue that God's purpose for creating is God's own glory. I'm all for putting God at the center. It's all about God. But this just begs the question: What glorifies God? Must all things glorify God? I don't see why we should assume that. So by all means, let's put God's glory right at the center and make it God's sole purpose for creating. It still doesn't follow that evil glorifies God, or that God unconditionally determines all things, or that we don't possess LFW.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/15/2004 3:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Wicker: I wonder if he treats his own daughters that way....
Tom: I doubt it. But this "analogy" would be dismissed by him on the laser gun grounds. 
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
the Wicker Man
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2004
Total Posts : 73
| Posted 11/15/2004 4:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Wicker: I wonder if he treats his own daughters that way....
Tom: I doubt it. But this "analogy" would be dismissed by him on the laser gun grounds.
Tom
it's a pathetic god that has to commit evil against his creatures and then "rescue" them from it....
that's the Munchhausen Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP) god
quote:
Munchhausen Syndrome By Proxy: or MSBP is a bizarre variant in which a child is used as a surrogate patient . The parent falsifies history and may injure the child to simulate a disease. The parent seeks medical care for the child and always appears to be deeply concerned and overly protective. The child is often seriously ill, and requires frequent hospitalization and may even die. MSBP is very hard to detect. MSBP victims may undergo numerous lab tests, multi medication trials, and surgical procedures that aren't really needed.
Munchhausen syndrome by proxy parent or caregiver has a need to feel "special" or heroic to stimulate attention from people, such as family, friends, community, and medical professions. Often using their child as the victim, and the child has been under medical care most of their young life.
When MSBP is suspected, health care professionals/providers are required by law to report their concerns to law enforcement and social service agencies.
http://www.med-help.net/Munchhausen.html
cottontail's god needs to be reported, imho
uromancer to the stars | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/15/2004 5:00 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Albert Einstein
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 83
| Posted 11/15/2004 5:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Mr. Tom,
Do you think snails sit around and discuss whether they have LFW or not?
How about cats or cows? no
Why? Animals, being naturalistically controlled by "instinct" do not have the self-awareness that humans do, thus they cannot comprehend LFW as that requires a higher order of consciousness.
“Being conscious is being aware of being aware." -- Robert Ornstein
“It has been well said that an animal knows, but only a man knows that he knows” -- Sir John Eccles
“...[H]uman beings are also the only animals that seem fully aware of the consciousness of other individuals and thus have been able to develop empathy, the capacity to identify emotionally with others” -- Paul Ehrlich
So why do humans with LFW, think they don't have LFW? If a lower creature, not possessing LFW, can't comprehend LFW, why do those with the ability to comprehend LFW, think they don't have it?
(like Hindus who deny reality yet stop at stop lights, those who believe they don't have LFW, exercise it daily)
This closes the case for me, easily. Only creatures with LFW have the ability to ponder LFW.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/15/2004 6:30 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by the Wicker Man
it's a pathetic god that has to commit evil against his creatures and then "rescue" them from it....
that's the Munchhausen Syndrome By Proxy (MSBP) god
Very interesting, Satan is a proxy for God and God is glorified by this. No wonder Satan is filled with pride, it's his munchhausen syndrome making him feel “special”. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/15/2004 6:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by the Wicker Man
Munchhausen Syndrome is people who willfully hurt themselves to get attention, mostly from caregivers.
Munchhausen Syndrom By Proxy is parents who willfully harm their children in order to get attention, mostly from caregivers.
cottontail's god is seen as such, he willfully harms* his children and then "rescues" and "comforts" them in order to show his glory. pretty apt description, imho
*directly or through others, satan would just be one of these agents
It’s deeply sick in either case.
 | | Back to Top | | |
| 184 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:12 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 |
|
|