God's omnipotence doesn't negate God's Being, God's Nature as God. God can not lie, for instance, because God is all Truth. God is not helplessly bound to moral standards or principles, God IS that which is Truth, hence Moral. It is God's Nature, God's Being that is the standard, not some separate system.I don't, as you alledge, suppose that "free will is contradictory to a world in which every person loves God (and knows God exists)." There is no contradiction; in fact such a world was/is God's Will. What I argue is that in creating such free beings, God must allow for sin and rebellion OR the beings would not be free to love, they would be automatons. At some juncture, when all things have been accomplished, there will be such a world where all will know God, as they are responsible to know God now since God's existence is evident, and in that Day, all mankind who have inherited the promises will indeed love God unfailingly.
"One: There is at least one aspect of each cognitive being's thoughts/feelings over which they have no choice, and no free will: That these thoughts/feelings begin to exist at all."
These first movements of thought, I agree, are not at this time under man's control. This is one of the effects of the Fall.
"Two: Before we even begin to exist, this god would be capable of knowing in advance which of us will freely choose to 'love him' and which of us will not."
Humanly speaking, I agree. So far I agree with you.
"Three: This god would be capable of allowing that only cognitive beings who would freely choose to love him anyway begin to exist, thus preventing the eternal suffering of billions upon billions of souls. (This god would have been capable of not creating Lucifer or any other angel which would fall, all without preventing the angels he did create from loving him freely.)"
Here we part company. Such a view of reality is illusory. What is loving God freely, but freely choosing to do His Will (by His grace, of course)? Such a world God 'desired.' But there can be no choice pro God that is not in a matrix which allows one to not choose God. Intelligent beings choose to love God, if in fact they do choose to love God, they choose freely. Take humans. If God did not create Adam and Eve because God knew they would rebell, we would not be here. So God creates Joe and Edith, whom God knows will not rebell but love Him. They have kids.....but only kids that will love God. See any difficulties developing?
"It HAS to be that evil comes, but woe by whom it comes." ...Jesus
A man in a real world makes choices over against options, choosing to love or not to love in every instance of choice. n this endurance one sees the maturation of character and finally of a love that never dies.
"Four: In choosing to love or not-love another entity, one must first be aware of that entity's existence. Many human beings would choose to love this god IF they were aware he existed, but cannot make this choice because they are unaware that there is a god to make this choice ABOUT. In his omniscience, this god would be well aware of this fact."
In fact the existence of God is plain for all to see.
Romans 1:[19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; [21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools
Obviously you object to Paul's assertions. This will take effort to illustrate, another time, if youb will. But, it is fair for me to counter assert what you assert also without evidence, or as you insist, calling your assertions "self-evident truths."
sidebar: Thomas Jefferson (not a Christian, perhaps a deist) wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
So, all in all I am not, you will agree, in bad company :-).
Bear in mind, also, that we hold that all mankind can be saved, even those who may not explicitely accept the Gospel because they have not heard it.
"Five: Certainty of this god's existence is not a breach of free will, since it does not preclude a cognitive being from choosing not to love this god anyway"
See my answer to #4. Of course, I quite agree that such certainty does not breach man's freedom. That certainty, which, absence the very Vision of God, is nonetheless clear and evident, is precisely the reason why those who rebell have no excuse.
"Six: This god would be capable of making all cognitive beings certain of his existence. Doing so would save billions upon billions of souls without inhibiting the exercise of free will."
Love doesn't ever coerce. Love invites. "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you."
This is a matter of love and freedom not coercion and tyranny.God invites, God doesn't impose. That is not to say that God does not deal severely with those who rebell, but
Christ says: Rev.3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.
So, there you have my effort of this early morning. :-)
Monday, June 4, 2007
GOD'S PLAN ?
The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches,
which account for about four fifths of the world's Christians,
do not believe:
1. That what you represent IS Christian theology.
2. That you can make God responsible for Angelic choice or human choice when those choices are for rebellion. These intelligent beings, according to the overwhelming body of Christians, are free to make a choice for or against the law of love.
3. That Hell is essentially a place, but they rather believe that Hell is a state of being.
4. That objective standards of right and wrong are created. God is Good and naught else, they believe, in God's very substance of Being and hence what is right is in fact this very nature of God, essentially Love, that is the entire Will for the fullest joy of the beloved.
5.That "sin" are acts contrary to an arbitrary God's objective moral standards (see #4). Sin, they believe, are thoughts, words, or actions that are contrary to the fullest wellbeing of themselves and of others.
6.That the earth etc. were created with the "appearance of age."
7.That there was a literal tree. That the tree provided knowledge of God's objective moral standards. The "tree" was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Christian Theology (Catholic and Orthodox) believe Adam and Eve were created in a preternatural state of moral perfection and intelligence, of will and of character, whole, good and with complete integrity. Eating from the "tree" (a metaphor) was not to increase their integrity but to know the difference between good, which they already knew and evil, that is they wanted to know evil, how it differs from the good they possessed since their creation. Quite different from what you are saying.
8. That Adam and Eve had no knowledge of moral good (what you call God's objective standards, see #7).
9. That the tree would enlighten them.
10. That they didn't know before hand that "eating from the tree" was wrong, since God commanded that they refrain. Bear in mind, no one is saying that this story is literal among Catholic theologians. But it is, according to the, still true." Eating from the tree" wasn't to enlighten but rather to "be like God." At that instant, at the instant where they chose to be equal to God, at the very nanosecond of decision, made with a clear mind, free will, devoid of confusion, full of malice, they Fell from reality into sin, which is a distortion of reality, and instantly bore the result of that decision, spiritual death, confusion, moral blindness etc.Christians do not believe that the two were duped, poor little Adam and Eve. No.
11. That the descendants of Adam and Eve bear the guilt of their sin. The descendants bear the results, effect of their sin, because, no one can give what they don't have, and these two could not generate from their fallen nature, natures perfect every way. Everyone of their descendants has born the effects of this Fall because the Fall debilitated human nature. They believe that God could and did fill some descendants with grace and made them righteous, but that story must wait until later. In any event, no one escapesd the effects of the Fall. This is not logically God being a meanie, rather this is the way reality is. Nemo dat quod non habet. I once read that on a toilet stall door's wall. "Nobody can give what they don't have." More anon on this.
12. That only afterwards they knew what they did was a sin. They knew when they did it. What they didn't know was the experience of having done it, done what was evil. It was this immersion in evil that was new to them.
13. They believe that those who are not regenerated by the waters of Baptism will not be saved. Now this is a involved matter, you can appreciate, and not ameanable to a sound or text bite. Suffice for the moment to say that to be saved a human person must acknowledge that God is, that God rewards good and punishes evil, and that they conduct their lives in goodness, eshewing evil. This suffices for those who have not been given to know the Gospel and is an implicit desire (they would if they knew) for Baptism. You may quarrel with this but it is not the matter as you misrepresent in the video.
14.That Lucifer was allowed to take a physical form [of a talking serpent]. Myth, but true
in content. Myths are not necessarily false, they are motifs to get across a truth.
which account for about four fifths of the world's Christians,
do not believe:
1. That what you represent IS Christian theology.
2. That you can make God responsible for Angelic choice or human choice when those choices are for rebellion. These intelligent beings, according to the overwhelming body of Christians, are free to make a choice for or against the law of love.
3. That Hell is essentially a place, but they rather believe that Hell is a state of being.
4. That objective standards of right and wrong are created. God is Good and naught else, they believe, in God's very substance of Being and hence what is right is in fact this very nature of God, essentially Love, that is the entire Will for the fullest joy of the beloved.
5.That "sin" are acts contrary to an arbitrary God's objective moral standards (see #4). Sin, they believe, are thoughts, words, or actions that are contrary to the fullest wellbeing of themselves and of others.
6.That the earth etc. were created with the "appearance of age."
7.That there was a literal tree. That the tree provided knowledge of God's objective moral standards. The "tree" was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Christian Theology (Catholic and Orthodox) believe Adam and Eve were created in a preternatural state of moral perfection and intelligence, of will and of character, whole, good and with complete integrity. Eating from the "tree" (a metaphor) was not to increase their integrity but to know the difference between good, which they already knew and evil, that is they wanted to know evil, how it differs from the good they possessed since their creation. Quite different from what you are saying.
8. That Adam and Eve had no knowledge of moral good (what you call God's objective standards, see #7).
9. That the tree would enlighten them.
10. That they didn't know before hand that "eating from the tree" was wrong, since God commanded that they refrain. Bear in mind, no one is saying that this story is literal among Catholic theologians. But it is, according to the, still true." Eating from the tree" wasn't to enlighten but rather to "be like God." At that instant, at the instant where they chose to be equal to God, at the very nanosecond of decision, made with a clear mind, free will, devoid of confusion, full of malice, they Fell from reality into sin, which is a distortion of reality, and instantly bore the result of that decision, spiritual death, confusion, moral blindness etc.Christians do not believe that the two were duped, poor little Adam and Eve. No.
11. That the descendants of Adam and Eve bear the guilt of their sin. The descendants bear the results, effect of their sin, because, no one can give what they don't have, and these two could not generate from their fallen nature, natures perfect every way. Everyone of their descendants has born the effects of this Fall because the Fall debilitated human nature. They believe that God could and did fill some descendants with grace and made them righteous, but that story must wait until later. In any event, no one escapesd the effects of the Fall. This is not logically God being a meanie, rather this is the way reality is. Nemo dat quod non habet. I once read that on a toilet stall door's wall. "Nobody can give what they don't have." More anon on this.
12. That only afterwards they knew what they did was a sin. They knew when they did it. What they didn't know was the experience of having done it, done what was evil. It was this immersion in evil that was new to them.
13. They believe that those who are not regenerated by the waters of Baptism will not be saved. Now this is a involved matter, you can appreciate, and not ameanable to a sound or text bite. Suffice for the moment to say that to be saved a human person must acknowledge that God is, that God rewards good and punishes evil, and that they conduct their lives in goodness, eshewing evil. This suffices for those who have not been given to know the Gospel and is an implicit desire (they would if they knew) for Baptism. You may quarrel with this but it is not the matter as you misrepresent in the video.
14.That Lucifer was allowed to take a physical form [of a talking serpent]. Myth, but true
in content. Myths are not necessarily false, they are motifs to get across a truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)