scombrid

I dislike Charlie Daniels but Uneasy Rider is a great song.

Christian

Rhea,

Yes, that does give me a better understanding of your perspective.

I would like to point out that your idea that acts of justice which are anything other than rehabilitative are "pointless" and "make the perpetrator as low as the one he punishes" is inconsistent with your allowance for imprisonment and certainly inconsistent with the death penalty. Beyond that, I'll chew on what you have said and see if I can provide a more meaningful response.

To clarify, Helen is correct that what is appropriate behavior for God is not necessarily appropriate behavior for humans. I don't see vengence as "godly" meaning something we should all aspire to. Quite the opposite. But I do see vengence as "Godly" meaning something that God does justly. Vengence is distinctly the role of God. He has delegated some of that role on earth to the governments He establishes. But for the individual Christian, a vengeful heart is a vice. My point in giving the example I did was that I can somewhat understand why vengence is an element of God's justice. I wasn't trying to say that being vengeful is a good thing for us to do.

Surely you realize that the distinctive handling qualities of the Maza Miata are an essential element of the Miata driving experience? How can you even suggest so crass a transplant as a V8??? The result would be something very fast indeed, but it would no longer be a "Miata" in any meaningful sense of the word. It might still look like a Miata, but the second you slid behind the wheel and turned the key in the ignition the illusion would be shattered!

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Rhea,

I would go beyond "content" and claim that the current state of affairs is actually necessary, is in fact exactly what is needed, for bringing about the ultimate good which God intends. And yes, when it comes down to it I accept that on faith.

I will say that any unmerited suffering experienced by God's children in this world will be more than compensated for in the eternal state. Also that eternal punishment, for those who receive it, will be on a sliding scale, as you would expect perfectly just punishment to be. (Lk 12:47-48) Those kind of factors help explain it, but I do admit to relying on faith in answering the problem of evil. As I stated earlier, the answer is not an explaination but rather Jesus Himself.

Now that I consider it, if God was "content" He would not be in the process of redeeming this cursed world. He certainly would not have chosen to endure so much pain and humiliation in order to transform something He was content with.

Necessary? Yes. Content? No.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Rad,

I'm afraid you've lost me. I wasn't trying to question anyone's good works. I wasn't making any statement about how much has been done by anyone to allieviate pain and suffering in this world. I was challenging the idea that anyone could be content with the current state of affairs in this world.

What exactly is your objection to the question I asked? I don't understand.

Respectfully,

Christian

Dr Rick

Then couldn't your position be re-stated as: "The current state of affairs is actually necessary, is in fact exactly what is needed, for bringing about the ultimate good which God intends though I have neither evidence nor any logical argument to support my belief."?

If not, if I have misstated your position, please provide either the evidence or argument to the support your initial claim.


But, even assuming that your assumptions are true, wouldn't that unmerited suffering still be unmerited?

Rick

Christian

Rhea,

I understood his implication to be that there was a cause and effect relationship between me haing "it" and me finding God. Perhaps I was wrong.

I was basically saying that if you really want to go there, then I must insist that the contrast is not between being neutral or "having it." The contrast is between "having it" and "having the opposite of it." Our biases, natural or acquired, are something we must deal with and perhaps overcome if necessary. But everyone is biased, noone is perfectly objective. There is, in practical fact, no neutral position.

Even if an "externalizing instinct" makes it easier to find God than a "discounting the external instinct," there are plenty of examples of people with the latter succeeding in finding God. It is very much possible. God doesn't let you "off the hook" because you are naturally skeptical. James the brother of Jesus was utterly skeptical that there was anything special about his brother until the resurrected Jesus came to visit him. That apparently was enough, because James became the leader of the church in Jerusalem. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis ... there are plenty of examples of people highly skeptical by nature who found God.

Maybe I was reading to much into what I was responding to ... but I think it is important to note that many people with no trace of an "externalizing instinct" have found God. If God does exist, then lacking such an instinct doesn't get you off the hook. It does not block you from being able to find the God who exists. It's not a valid excuse.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Philosoft,

OK. Certainly there will be boundaries in heaven ... Christians won't be omnipotent. I do still maintain that people will make good choices there because they want to, not because of any boundry they are unable to cross. Not because of any lack of power or potential to chose wrong.

OK. Got it. I consider predetermination and "free will" compatible, but then I've been making statements under the definition of free will that I gave earlier.

Under that definition I don't think anyone has free will (except God Himself). Not now, and not in the eternal state. If God is the Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator then we are all constrained by divine will in an ultimate sense.

Within that divine will, however, we make willing choices that are entirely our own, that have real consequences, and that we are held accountable for. I do think that "free will" as I defined it earlier is not a slight thing, and that it is something we have now and something we will have in the eternal state.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Stephen,

To belabor the point, suggesting that I believe because of some "externalizing instinct" is just as insulting and inadequate a proposition to me as "you don’t believe because you don’t want to believe" is for you.

Neither proposition acually accomplishes much in the way of meaningful conversation. My only point is that such an argument cuts just as sharply both ways. It's probably an argument best avoided by both sides.

Respectfully,

Christian

Philosoft

Well, borrowing Radorth's idea, if we assume that people in heaven won't have physical bodies, then their ability to experience anything relating to physical touch is lost. On Earth, they could basically touch anything they wanted to, with varying sensations and varying related emotions. In heaven, they can no longer touch, receive sensations or have related emotions. This is something Radorth mentioned earlier about the removal of the desire to sin carnally. If this is true, a person in heaven would have somehow to lose her desire to touch, in addition to losing her physical ability to touch; otherwise, she could have a willed desire she is unable to instantiate.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the common forms of compatibilism can account for statements like, "P will do A at future time T." I believe they require God's foreknowledge to be of a probabilistic nature, something that is incompatible with the aforementioned statement.

Naturally, you are under no obligation to accede to my choice of definitions. Now that I study it, that definition I posted seems a little too libertarian. It's patently true that there are external constraints that prevent us from actualizing all willful desires. I think the definition might work better if that part was omitted.

Maybe, but you're not going to get me to accede to a definition that presupposes a "divine will" without an exceedingly good reason to do so.

Hail

"1. We all have free will on earth. This causes bad things to happen. But we deal with that because free will is better than being a Robot."

well we could choose to avoid teh bad things!?!

"2. God can't come up with any way to restrict Free Will to choices between good things"

I think that would be won't come up with any thing. What we are to do is within our potential but the little birdie won't leave the nest. They are trying to push us out of our nest This world is under renovation since 911 and the choises we make is what will be use to make the mold of what world we will have. No free choice no abilit to freely choose those things.

"3. The goal, of course being to get to Heaven®"

and that would depend on what one takes Heaven to mean.

I thought we were in heaven? I'm confused

you have all right to be.

If there si only white nothing can be seen! you won't know if you are moving.

again , dependes on ones perception per what teachings one has seen.


God needs nothing. God has no conditions to meet. We do. We need will. Gods will is extended in you the part of himself that has needs. The choices that would preserve us is God's will. You make preserving choises. We haven't caught on that this is allz what is going on so we harbour fear throwing a wrench in our choices-process. Those choises can come to fruition as it has been. We even now fear our own selves. 911 cleared the board to forumulate things in a new energy space.

ps:That's how I see it