Soteriological Drama

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

Post Reply
The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Soteriological Drama

Post by The Pixie » Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:54 am

Joe recently linked to this from a CADRE discussion.
The better twist on the free will defense would be to start from a different position. We should start with the basis for creation, in so far as we can understand it, and then to show how the logical and non self contradictory requirements of the logic of creation require free will. What is usually missing or not pointed out is the necessity of free will in the making of moral choices. This is the step that atheists and Christian apologists alike sometimes overlook; that it is absolutely essential in a non-self contradictory way, that humanity have free will. Thus, free will must out weight any other value. At that point, since it is a matter of self contradiction, omnipotence cannot be played off against free will, because God's omnipotence does not allow God to dispense with Free will!
What of the free will of the victim? When a child is murdered, God chooses to allow the murderer to exercise his free will without restraint. The child, not so much. Why does God favour the free will of bad people?

And what of natural evil? What of al the people that suffered during the Boxing Day Tsunami? How does free will excuse God allowing all that pain, misery and death?
... I assume that love is the background of the moral universe (this is also an Augustinian view). I also assume that there is a deeply ontological connection between love and Being. Axiomatically, in my view point, love is the basic impitus of Being itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.
Love was the motivation, then reducing suffering would be a priority.

Unless the motivation is a selfish need to receive love from people, rather than a love of them.
(2) that internal "seeking" leads to greater internalization of values than forced compliance or complaisance that would be the result of intimidation.
That's a pretty fair assumption. We all know that people will a lot more to achieve a goal they truly beileve in than one they merely feel forced or obligated to follow but couldn't care less about.
(3)the the drama or the big mystery is the only way to accomplish that end.
The pursuit of the value system becomes a search of the heart for ultimate meaning,that ensures that people continue to seek it until it has been fully internalized.
This is the crux of it. The only way God could come up with for people to achieve some perfect moral state is if they have to struggle through suffering.

How many people achieve this "fully internalized"? Certainly not the girl who was murdered, and to be honest, I am doubtful the murderer will either. Look around you, and think how many people have achieved fully internalised love morality. What do you think God's success rate is here? I mean, forget it if you live in the Western world, your life is way to easy, with your fancy machines to clean the house, and cars to get you everywhere and fast food and leisure time.
(1)God's purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.
And there it is. We suffer, billions of people feel pain and misery, to stroke God's ego. At the end of the day, all this misery is so some people will choose to love God.

Oh, and none of this actually says why God did not intervene to save the girl from being murdered. He could still have free will in the universe even if he stops murders and rapes before they are committed.

Jim B.
Posts: 1443
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Soteriological Drama

Post by Jim B. » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:33 pm

The Pixie wrote:Joe recently linked to this from a CADRE discussion.
The better twist on the free will defense would be to start from a different position. We should start with the basis for creation, in so far as we can understand it, and then to show how the logical and non self contradictory requirements of the logic of creation require free will. What is usually missing or not pointed out is the necessity of free will in the making of moral choices. This is the step that atheists and Christian apologists alike sometimes overlook; that it is absolutely essential in a non-self contradictory way, that humanity have free will. Thus, free will must out weight any other value. At that point, since it is a matter of self contradiction, omnipotence cannot be played off against free will, because God's omnipotence does not allow God to dispense with Free will!
What of the free will of the victim? When a child is murdered, God chooses to allow the murderer to exercise his free will without restraint. The child, not so much. Why does God favour the free will of bad people?

And what of natural evil? What of al the people that suffered during the Boxing Day Tsunami? How does free will excuse God allowing all that pain, misery and death?
... I assume that love is the background of the moral universe (this is also an Augustinian view). I also assume that there is a deeply ontological connection between love and Being. Axiomatically, in my view point, love is the basic impitus of Being itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.
Love was the motivation, then reducing suffering would be a priority.

Unless the motivation is a selfish need to receive love from people, rather than a love of them.
(2) that internal "seeking" leads to greater internalization of values than forced compliance or complaisance that would be the result of intimidation.
That's a pretty fair assumption. We all know that people will a lot more to achieve a goal they truly beileve in than one they merely feel forced or obligated to follow but couldn't care less about.
(3)the the drama or the big mystery is the only way to accomplish that end.
The pursuit of the value system becomes a search of the heart for ultimate meaning,that ensures that people continue to seek it until it has been fully internalized.
This is the crux of it. The only way God could come up with for people to achieve some perfect moral state is if they have to struggle through suffering.

How many people achieve this "fully internalized"? Certainly not the girl who was murdered, and to be honest, I am doubtful the murderer will either. Look around you, and think how many people have achieved fully internalised love morality. What do you think God's success rate is here? I mean, forget it if you live in the Western world, your life is way to easy, with your fancy machines to clean the house, and cars to get you everywhere and fast food and leisure time.
(1)God's purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.
And there it is. We suffer, billions of people feel pain and misery, to stroke God's ego. At the end of the day, all this misery is so some people will choose to love God.

Oh, and none of this actually says why God did not intervene to save the girl from being murdered. He could still have free will in the universe even if he stops murders and rapes before they are committed.
You're writing the same exact things you were writing at the start of of very loooonnnnng thread on GOd and natural evil. Are you utterly impervious to experience and to anything you read?

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Soteriological Drama

Post by The Pixie » Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:41 am

Are you referring to the thread on smallpox? Odd, I do not recall anything in that that was at all convincing. I am glad you can, because you will fond it trivial to answer these (if they really were addressed on that thread). Or just link to the post where it is made clear:

1. What of the free will of the victim?

2. How does a consideration of free will prevent God intervening to stop a natural disaster?

3. Roughly how many people have this "fully internalized" morality (an order of magnitude estimate is good enough)? Of those who do, how much real suffering have they experienced?

4. Actually why does God not intervene to prevent murder? I mean specifically the mechanics of how would stopping a murder stop free will.

Jim B.
Posts: 1443
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Soteriological Drama

Post by Jim B. » Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:40 am

The Pixie wrote:Are you referring to the thread on smallpox? Odd, I do not recall anything in that that was at all convincing. I am glad you can, because you will fond it trivial to answer these (if they really were addressed on that thread). Or just link to the post where it is made clear:

1. What of the free will of the victim?

2. How does a consideration of free will prevent God intervening to stop a natural disaster?

3. Roughly how many people have this "fully internalized" morality (an order of magnitude estimate is good enough)? Of those who do, how much real suffering have they experienced?

4. Actually why does God not intervene to prevent murder? I mean specifically the mechanics of how would stopping a murder stop free will.
1., 2, and 4. are exactly what we discussed at excruciating length on that thread. If you can't or won't assimilate what you read, what's the point of going over it all again? You're making the very same points you made before any of this was discussed. You see, when people have long in-depth discussions about a topic, they show some signs of at least having internalized some of what was said. They make their arguments more subtle, more nuanced to acommodate and respond to some of the material they've since been exposed to. That's generally the way discussions work, with humans....

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Soteriological Drama

Post by The Pixie » Thu Jun 15, 2017 2:11 pm

Jim B. wrote:1., 2, and 4. are exactly what we discussed at excruciating length on that thread. If you can't or won't assimilate what you read, what's the point of going over it all again? You're making the very same points you made before any of this was discussed. You see, when people have long in-depth discussions about a topic, they show some signs of at least having internalized some of what was said. They make their arguments more subtle, more nuanced to acommodate and respond to some of the material they've since been exposed to. That's generally the way discussions work, with humans....
That depends on the discussion. For example, I do not agree with Meta that the empty tomb was present in the passion narrative at some point. I do not recall anything like that in that discussion.

Take number 4.

Scenario 1. Man decides to rape and murder a girl. He catches her in a dark alley, rapes her, murders her.

Scenario 2. Man decides to rape and murder a girl. He catches her in a dark alley, God intervenes and stops her rape and murder.

I think the second scenario has more free will, because the girl survives, and gets to exercise free will for the rest of her life. The position presented in that thread, on the other hand, is that scenario 1 gives us more feree will. I have literally no idea why you would think that - yes, despite seventeen pages discussing it.

Now, you can show I am an idiot by pointing out just one post when this was made clear - as per your claim - or select one page if you like or even just repeat the rebuttal here. Or you can tacitly admit that actually it never got addressed by continuing to duck the issue.

Jim B.
Posts: 1443
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Soteriological Drama

Post by Jim B. » Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:33 pm

The Pixie wrote:
Jim B. wrote:1., 2, and 4. are exactly what we discussed at excruciating length on that thread. If you can't or won't assimilate what you read, what's the point of going over it all again? You're making the very same points you made before any of this was discussed. You see, when people have long in-depth discussions about a topic, they show some signs of at least having internalized some of what was said. They make their arguments more subtle, more nuanced to acommodate and respond to some of the material they've since been exposed to. That's generally the way discussions work, with humans....
That depends on the discussion. For example, I do not agree with Meta that the empty tomb was present in the passion narrative at some point. I do not recall anything like that in that discussion.

Take number 4.

Scenario 1. Man decides to rape and murder a girl. He catches her in a dark alley, rapes her, murders her.

Scenario 2. Man decides to rape and murder a girl. He catches her in a dark alley, God intervenes and stops her rape and murder.

I think the second scenario has more free will, because the girl survives, and gets to exercise free will for the rest of her life. The position presented in that thread, on the other hand, is that scenario 1 gives us more feree will. I have literally no idea why you would think that - yes, despite seventeen pages discussing it.

Now, you can show I am an idiot by pointing out just one post when this was made clear - as per your claim - or select one page if you like or even just repeat the rebuttal here. Or you can tacitly admit that actually it never got addressed by continuing to duck the issue.
But you must have literally had some idea of what I was saying because you were disagreeing with it for seventeen pages. You have no idea of any aspect of the argument I was making? That's breathtaking, and it says more far more about you than you probably intended.

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Soteriological Drama

Post by The Pixie » Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:37 pm

Jim B. wrote:But you must have literally had some idea of what I was saying because you were disagreeing with it for seventeen pages. You have no idea of any aspect of the argument I was making? That's breathtaking, and it says more far more about you than you probably intended.
Sure I knew what you were saying, but how that related to the actual question, no idea. I have (fairly quickly) looked through your posts on pages 12 to 16, and I have to say, I do not know what you answer is. I can guess some of the words you would use, but not how they go together to make an answer that holds together.

Jim B.
Posts: 1443
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Soteriological Drama

Post by Jim B. » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:27 am

The Pixie wrote:
Jim B. wrote:But you must have literally had some idea of what I was saying because you were disagreeing with it for seventeen pages. You have no idea of any aspect of the argument I was making? That's breathtaking, and it says more far more about you than you probably intended.
Sure I knew what you were saying, but how that related to the actual question, no idea. I have (fairly quickly) looked through your posts on pages 12 to 16, and I have to say, I do not know what you answer is. I can guess some of the words you would use, but not how they go together to make an answer that holds together.
There are two separate issues here:
1) Agreeing with what someone argues, and
2) Assimilating/understanding what they argue.

If you cannot, or will not, accomplish 2), ( and after 17 pages, you cannot say that i didn't give you more than ample opportunity to do so), and I want to be charitable here and assume that you cannot rather than that you will not, then why continue? Until you work on your reading comprehension, this is all a massive waste of time and effort.

Post Reply