Blixa wrote:It all seems very cosmically Catch-22 to me, Coggins. I suppose it does to other unbelievers like me, too. I'm not digging in for a long argument or discussion on this, though. I merely wanted to follow through with a description of the problem that harmony's post brings up.
It's difficult to play 'what if' games while trying to figure out an omniscient being. If we planned it we would have to consider what God would do if Satan hadn't fallen. He didn't. He knew the end from the beginning. How he relates to time I don't know. I only have guesses.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
I completely agree, Nehor. In order for it to make sense, I have to posit a divine mentality utterly different than what I can conceive of. And that's the problem. Not that I am unable to trust that there could be such a thing, but that I can't find a way to explain a divinity that would endow its offspring with astonishing powers of rationality, but then demand that they throw them aside or suspend them. I guess I can conceive of such a being, actually. I just don't want to venerate one.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Blixa wrote:I completely agree, Nehor. In order for it to make sense, I have to posit a divine mentality utterly different than what I can conceive of. And that's the problem. Not that I am unable to trust that there could be such a thing, but that I can't find a way to explain a divinity that would endow its offspring with astonishing powers of rationality, but then demand that they throw them aside or suspend them. I guess I can conceive of such a being, actually. I just don't want to venerate one.
I expect that it is not a matter of denying their rationality as accepting they are not omniscient. I've tried to get my mind around it and God has explained enough of it to me symbolically that I believe it exists but I can't explain it in any rational way. I expect that it is one of those things you can't conceive of until you experience it. I understand the Book of Moses to be saying that you can't reach that point of knowledge and remain on the Earth afterwards.
I also think we overestimate our powers of rationality.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
I also think we overestimate our powers of rationality.
No doubt, but that's why I find the scientific "testing" of viewpoints against each other, or in other words, ongoing critique, to be so useful.
Have you ever heard of a Michael Tolkein film called "The Rapture?" Its very good, I think. What I like about it is that it takes (Christian? Chrinstian fundamentalist? Not sure how to correctly describe) relgious claims/beliefs very seriously. I don't think it mocks them at all, and in fact, since the narrative goes beyond the "end of the world"/"rapture" actually supposes a scenario in which they are true.
At the same time, the main "believer" character comes to reject God because she will not serve a being that exacts such a terrible price for salvation. I understand the choice the character played by Mimi Rogers makes, and it is the one I would make too.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
I also think we overestimate our powers of rationality.
No doubt, but that's why I find the scientific "testing" of viewpoints against each other, or in other words, ongoing critique, to be so useful.
Have you ever heard of a Michael Tolkein film called "The Rapture?" Its very good, I think. What I like about it is that it takes (Christian? Chrinstian fundamentalist? Not sure how to correctly describe) relgious claims/beliefs very seriously. I don't think it mocks them at all, and in fact, since the narrative goes beyond the "end of the world"/"rapture" actually supposes a scenario in which they are true.
At the same time, the main "believer" character comes to reject God because she will not serve a being that exacts such a terrible price for salvation. I understand the choice the character played by Mimi Rogers makes, and it is the one I would make too.
I should watch that film but the fundamental problem with that kind of reasoning is that if God created us including our sense of morality we can't have a higher sense of morality than he does. If God thinks/knows (is there a difference in omniscience?) the price is worth paying, it must be. This is not to discount the morality and reason we have now. Last time I read Job it was clear to me that God wants us to stretch the mind. Job was lauded at the end for both trusting God and relentlessly trying to morally figure out why what was going on was going on. His friends were revealed as wrong for arguing that God was so beyond us that our reason and morality have nothing in common with His at all. Advancement comes from relentlessly applying what knowledge and morality we have. When we meet God and he explains all things I don't doubt that much of what I have come up with will seem foolishness. However I do not think what He presents will be alien either. It will be an obvious step up.
I find the evangelical rapture scenario distasteful particularly the kind involved in the "Left Behind" series. I made a deal with a friend to read it and by the end I was rooting for the AntiChrist which is never a good sign. :)
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Coggins7 wrote:We don't believe that God created Satan in the sense of his being created as a foil against God and righteousness. God created Lucifer's spirit body; he was one of the Father's children. He had free agency, and he chose his path.
Ok, I see the difference. Duly noted.
He now serves an important function within that plan. Its a dirty job, as they say, but someone had to do it.
Now this part interests me. It strikes me as speaking to the point that Satan is necessary to the "plan of salvation."
The problem here is that no matter how you slice this, God will always end up as responsible for evil until you restore the overarching concept of free agency to the question. At that point, God's culpability lies not in the existence of evil, but in existence. Without existence, there would be no evil as there would be no conscious entities to experience it. Problem solved.
Ok, but if Satan, or "someone" is needed (It's a dirty job, but someone had to do it) then the question of "free agency" seems rather trivial to the overall point: that is, that it was necessary for someone to be satan/the adversary. Maybe who would step up to the plate was open to "free agency," but nevertheless the role was necessary.
It all seems very cosmically Catch-22 to me, Coggins. I suppose it does to other unbelievers like me, too. I'm not digging in for a long argument or discussion on this, though. I merely wanted to follow through with a description of the problem that harmony's post brings up.
I'm not sure I'm following your argument here Blixa. I don't understand how Satan's part in the Plan implies the triviality of free will.
All our animal passions need to be overcome so they are our servants and not our masters.
Your statement gets to the heart of my question...
OK, so, who gave humans our "animal passions?"
Do you agree they developed through evolution or do you think they are of Satan?
If they were developed through evolution, then did they not come from God? This is where I am unclear of how these two ideas converge.
:-)
~dancer~
They come from God though whether they came through a process of evolution or through a more direct act of God I am not sure. I lean towards evolution at the moment but I've gone back and forth. Either way it doesn't affect the matter much for me except as a curiosity.
Animal instinct and passions are worth having but like all power it can be corrupted. I believe a good portion of the test for mortality is what we will do with these new powers. We have sex, the power to create that God has never trusted us with before. Will we use it selfishly or use it to create more joy in life for our partners and the children that will follow after. We have a desire for food and the gift of taste. Will we use this to make us happier or gorge ourselves or horde our food? We have the sensation of touch. Will we use it to comfort others or exploit it in others by hitting them or shooting them?
I think that all of these things are a gift from God. If we use them wisely they will be amplified through Christ. Use them poorly and they will dull until Christ's redemption will save as much as it can. Much of this waits for the afterlife but you can see it here too. Angry, hateful, spiteful, and vengeful people have a harder and harder time finding pleasure in even sex or the best vacations. Kind and happy people can find joy in a slice of bread. Those are the kind of people I want to be around forever.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Coggins7 wrote:I'm not sure I'm following your argument here Blixa. I don't understand how Satan's part in the Plan implies the triviality of free will.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear.
I didn't mean that free will itself was trivial, but that in the explanation you offered it seemed secondary to the primary necessity of an "adversary." Thus "trivial" as opposed to "overarching." I suppose "secondary" was the word I actually meant and should have used.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."