Van Agon

Hi HelenSL,

In response to your post dated July 05, 2002 02:01 PM, thank you for your response.

[You said:] Yes, I can understand that. I'm suggesting that omnipotent does not equate to absurd. Because free will definitionally requires the possibility of choosing to love, as well as choosing to deprive love, it follows that freely adapting the latter does not negate God's omnipotence. IOW, God is Omnipotent. God grants a good gift - freedom. And when we choose to use this privilege to pervert good, God's ultimate power still stands. Self-causing creatures are not inherently bad things. They simply have the power and authority to reject good, as well as to accept it.

[You said:] I simply haven't discovered a mechanism in which said intervention would not negate free will. I think liberty ought to be cherished. In as much as God could govern us, he has allowed us to choose to be self-governing. And that is what we have embraced. Therefore, He has chosen by His free will to limit His intervention, in respect of our choice to reject His soveriegn reign over the world.

[You said:] Yes, I can understand that. But, I also find it difficult to conceive of a better alternative - such as eliminating freedom.

[You said:] That makes sense to me. I certainly do not have all of the answers. My personal quest has resulted in concluding that it makes more sense that God is all loving, and that freedom is apart of that equation, than it does that there is no God, or that God is/does evil or partial evil.

Blessings, -Van

[ July 06, 2002: Message edited by: Van Agon ]</p>

A3

TooBad

I’ll try (after a busy weekend), what makes it hard is that I take some things for granted in my ‘relationship’ with God. Much the same as a trust in a marriage relationship where one wishes the other the very best and if there is hurt, there is a good reason for it or a genuine misunderstanding from our part.
Another thing is that I strongly believe in the reality of spirit and the influence of this spiritual world on our natural or physical world. This is a perfect parallel with our body and our spirit, in fact a human being could easily be regarded as a micro-cosmos. To ignore this spiritual side is to say we are just animals. To accept this spiritual side of us I consider the answer to all our questions but this is just my rendition or understanding of what Swedenborg wrote.
We and this world are alive because we are influenced by that spiritual world or heaven and hell. Heavenly influence I see as good thoughts, happiness and all the good qualities and virtues we can exhibit to the world. But also being on the right spot at the right time, have premonitions, a sixth sense. Almost a feeling of being looked after.
The hellish influence I see as the opposite of all the above. On the world scale I see one side as helping mankind with every possible opportunity, the other as causing as much pain and suffering as is allowed. Both sides were at one time people who exercised their God given freewill and developed their loves the way they wanted to. God loves people unconditionally, whether it is their choice to love or hate Him. I hasten to add that although He loves those that hate Him, He does not like what they do and has a special set of laws that govern their behavior.
These are the laws of Divine Providence. So basically I would say that hell is permitted to cause suffering and hardship for specific reasons which have to do with our freewill and eternal happiness.

Very much attached to the whole concept of freewill is our individual choice of association with either of these two sides. Whichever we invite we associate with.
The basis for this ‘micro burst’ can be fully found in the works by Swedenborg “Divine Love and Wisdom” and “Divine Providence.” The first one is about God and the second His working with mankind. A small work by D.W. Goodenough “Providence and Free Will in Human Actions” was also very helpfull.

Regards
Adriaan

Bill Snedden

It's an interesting point. I do intend on replying, but I wasn't able to get to it over the weekend, and I'll be out of town on business this week. I'll try to get something posted next weekend.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

HRG

And I could say that good has no positive metaphysical content of its own - and neither of us could logically support his position to the exclusion of the opposite one.
[quote]

Evil does not exist as a created thing. The relationship between God and evil is analogous to light and darkness. Darkness has no positive content of its own, but is simply the absence of light.
[quote]
That's one position. However there is no reason to prefer it over the opposite one: that good is simply the absence of evil.

The "evil is the absence of good" position suffers from a defect: it would lead to a "maximum evil" situation, the absence of all good. But however atrocious an evil act, I can always conceive a more atrocious one.

IOW, the more reasonable position is to regard good and evil as the two directions of a bipolar scale - like positive and negative charge. The negation of evil as a metaphysical concept of its own turns out to be an apologetic ad hoc argument.

regards,
HRG.

ManM

HRG,
I know a very good example of the complete absence of good: nonexistence. Now you have said that you can conceive of something more lacking in good. I have presented you with the case where there is not even the potential for good. What is more lacking in good than that?

A3

Hi Bill Snedden
Your points were:
P1) God created all that exists (except Himself, of course)
P2) Evil exists
C1) God created evil


I base my answer (or the lack of it) on the fact that syllogistic logic is incapable of dealing
with the complexities of reality. It completely ignores how creation was wrought and why because it does not care.

In 1938 Kurt Godel mathematically proved that in any number system (this includes logic) you can have either a complex set of axioms (propositions) which would be contradictory; or you can have a consistent set of axioms (propositions) which would be incomplete - that is, there are not enough axioms to prove everything that exists in that number system.

Godel's Theorem created a crisis in mathematics. Until then, mathematicians had been trying to create a rigorous logical foundation for mathematics, where everything could be logically derived from the basic axioms. If any field of human knowledge could be put on such a
foundation, surely it was mathematics.

Your example is consistent, but incomplete. It does not account for the fact that everything God created was good (Genesis 1). As soon as we add a proposition that says, "Everything God created was good," a contradiction arises.

So my points are:
PP1) God created all that exists (except Himself, of course)
PP2) My letter to you exists.
CC1) God created this letter.
You may object to the time interval of my letter since creation; however, evil did not materialize untill probably millions of years after creation either. So what is a million here or there?

A3

Hi Helen
If I may interject a question here, what suffering are you talking about. I am not saying there is no suffering but there is variety. We can suffer from the heat, a loved one that is lost etc.
What makes you think He can? He has established laws and He is abiding by His own rules. This human freedom aspect is only part of the equation. He is not sitting back enjoying our mucking about. He is governing every single detail of our life. Mostly that means providing ways that we commit less evil acts than we would if we were on our own.
If you really want a good look at what hell is like, watch “The Godfather.” They love what they are doing, to be nice to someone for no other reason than to be nice is hell to them. Every motive you see there is selfish, that’s hell to the most of us (I hope). It is the hate, the revenge, the domineering that causes the burning smell and they love every minute of it. It is love that allows each and every one to do what he or she loves and that is what heaven and hell is all about. They are not places but states of mind, in fact they are both in our mind. God said that heaven couldn’t be seen and that it was within us, well so is hell and it is trying very hard to get the upper hand in our life.
That is a very healthy approach (God I believe, help my unbelieve), another one is “with God all things are possible.” Well they are not! God can not do a lot of things because He has established rules and is following them Himself. He cannot send people to hell, (or to heaven for that matter), change His mind or hate anybody.

Regards
Adriaan

HelenM

Hi Adriaan, thanks for your response. I didn't know much about Swedenborgians believe; I guess I know a little more now...

love
Helen

A3

Hi Helen,
You are very welcome. Did it also help any?

Regards
Adriaan

HelenM

Not really

No offense, but, you said "[God] cannot send people to hell, (or to heaven for that matter), change His mind or hate anybody."

I don't find much comfort in a God who is so limited (even if it is by His own choice) that He can't do much.

I mean, how could I hope that such a God would deliver me, or save me, or help me?

And if He can't hate anyone how can I have any assurance He can love anyone, or that it has any meaning that He does?

So, what's the difference in believing in that kind of God compared with atheism - believing in no God? I mean, if God can't do much anyway - in particular if He can't hate me or send me to hell, then I might as well just get on with my life, doing what I want to do...

I suppose you could say 'believe it because it's true' - but, if such a belief doesn't make any difference then I don't see what is gained by believing it anyway.

At least, from a conservative Christian viewpoint, there's some incentive to believe in God (avoiding hell, etc)

love
Helen