Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

God's love wins over even the hardest of hearts.

It certainly has that ring of niceness in it...but what about freedom, then? Is there really any genuine possibility of choosing to love or not to love God?

Or are the UltraCalvinists essentially right: that God...whether in the short term or the long...simply bulldozes our wills and makes us do the right thing? And if that's how it plays out, what do we mean when we talk about our "loving" God? For ultimately, then, we then have no contribution to make to the relationship; it's no longer a two-sided assent of "lovers," but rather the one-sided control of the Divine Despot, our "love" being merely an illusion of choice.

Or is there another way to see that?

No, I simply take it that, given an eternity, all souls will come to recognize truth, and that God, being who God is, is willing to wait an eternity for that rather than close off the possibility of reconciliation. I'm not saying it doesn't have its problems, but they strike me as no insurmountable than the notion that a loving God would sentence someone to an eternity of punishment for a lifetime's worth of decisions.

How will reconciliation with God take place?

How will Hitler or Stalin or Mao...or you or me...come from a position of hatred of God to a position of being willing to spend eternity with Him?

Can you suggest what the relevant process might look like?

Immanuel Can wrote:How will reconciliation with God take place?

How will Hitler or Stalin or Mao...or you or me...come from a position of hatred of God to a position of being willing to spend eternity with Him?

Can you suggest what the relevant process might look like?

First mistake is to believe that Hitler hated God, his whole dogma was based on the idea that God hated Jews and Negros. I'm not convinced that Stalin or Mao hated God, they just wanted to preempt God's authority. I would guess that all 3 of them fully expected to stand before God in the end to answer for their lives, and expected forgiveness for whatever sins they may have committed.

Immanuel Can wrote:How will reconciliation with God take place?
...
Can you suggest what the relevant process might look like?

No idea, but I doubt we could even understand processes that occur after our death.

Well, what concerns me is this. It sounds like what you're saying is that the Universalist God will not brook the resisting of his will, and will not respect the will of any person; so if you don't "come around" in the present age, he either steamrollers your will as soon as you're dead and deprives you of your individuality, or else sets out on a protracted program to torture you into compliance in some sort of Purgatory.

But how else could he achieve universal salvation? It's not as though God could use the same methods He uses right now, such as inviting us freely and achieving justice by taking our punishment on Himself -- he'd have to ignore justice, force wills to obey, or torture until our wills broke. And in all cases, our will is just unimportant, it seems to me, and nothing resembling justice is achieved.

So I'm wondering if there's another way to think about it that I'm not seeing.

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, what concerns me is this. It sounds like what you're saying is that the Universalist God will not brook the resisting of his will, and will not respect the will of any person; so if you don't "come around" in the present age, he either steamrollers your will as soon as you're dead and deprives you of your individuality, or else sets out on a protracted program to torture you into compliance in some sort of Purgatory.

But how else could he achieve universal salvation? It's not as though God could use the same methods He uses right now, such as inviting us freely and achieving justice by taking our punishment on Himself -- he'd have to ignore justice, force wills to obey, or torture until our wills broke. And in all cases, our will is just unimportant, it seems to me, and nothing resembling justice is achieved.

So I'm wondering if there's another way to think about it that I'm not seeing.

Yes, I definitely think there is: that God's got an eternity and isn't going to give up. For example, if my son were to disown all ties to our family, I would respect that decision, but I would continue doing whatever I could to help him see the error of his ways. I certainly wouldn't force him to, but if he came around of his own free will 50 years later, I'd certainly be there to take him back. Now just extrapolate from me having a finite amount of time to God having an infinite amount.

Personally, I find the notion that a thinking individual could resist truth (if the Xian God is, in fact, true) for an eternity. I think no one's that stubborn--not even Lucifer.

God's got an eternity and isn't going to give up.

I don't know if this is the right way to frame it.

Consider this: when a man makes a plea for a woman's hand, he's a suitor; but when he doesn't "give up," despite the declared determination of that woman not to be with him, that significantly changes the complexion of what he's doing. No does mean no. We do tend to think there's something very wrong with a person who claims to want a relationship but does not care what the other person wants. Force and compulsion are not aspects of love.

Personally, I find the notion that a thinking individual could resist truth (if the Xian God is, in fact, true) for an eternity.

I think, though, it's not a matter of pure rationality, is it? I think if it were, everyone who had been offered the Christian reasons would be a Christian right now. But clearly some are determined not to be. Moreover, our cognitions are not always matters of pure reason, are they? Don't our affections and preferences sometimes enter the equation? I think there's more to unbelief than the simple facts and dispassionate reason. There's the desire for unrestricted personal autonomy, for one thing. And for self-justification as another. I'm sure you can add additional possible motives.

I guess the question becomes, then, what do we do with their dissent? If we force them to agree, or if we use government authority to coerce them, we become Inquisitors, and I think we shame the name of God. I have never thought the collusion of any kind of religious persuasion with the instruments of political power is a good thing. Besides, "A man convinced against his will / Remains an unbeliever still." And as John Locke so astutely pointed out, God knows the conscience of a person. so someone who capitulates insincerely is of no value to what He wants...which is the creation of a genuine relationship, I believe.

So I think it's far from reasonable to suppose there's any way God could force a person to capitulate to His authority, and then call it "love." Or so it seems to me.

Immanuel Can wrote:

God's got an eternity and isn't going to give up.

I don't know if this is the right way to frame it.

Consider this: when a man makes a plea for a woman's hand, he's a suitor; but when he doesn't "give up," despite the declared determination of that woman not to be with him, that significantly changes the complexion of what he's doing. No does mean no. We do tend to think there's something very wrong with a person who claims to want a relationship but does not care what the other person wants. Force and compulsion are not aspects of love.

Not force or compulsion, but persuasion. Also, we're also not talking about two equals, but something more along the lines of a parent-child relationship (like the example I provided previously). If a mother continues to coax her stubborn child back from a precipice, we certainly wouldn't say to the mother "but you've seen that the child has already said 'no.' Leave him alone. Respect his choice." Rather, I think we'd continue to encourage her to try, even if we were to (counter-intuitively, in this case) insist that she respect his free will. What's more, I see no reason that we must assent to the proposition that God asks only once in a lifetime and takes that answer as final. Putting aside that that would hardly count as love (as any parent knows), I see no logical necessity that God must limit "Him"self to a single lifetime to accomplish this task.

Immanuel Can wrote:Personally, I find the notion that a thinking individual could resist truth (if the Xian God is, in fact, true) for an eternity to be rather absurd.

I think, though, it's not a matter of pure rationality, is it? I think if it were, everyone who had been offered the Christian reasons would be a Christian right now. But clearly some are determined not to be. Moreover, our cognitions are not always matters of pure reason, are they? Don't our affections and preferences sometimes enter the equation? I think there's more to unbelief than the simple facts and dispassionate reason. There's the desire for unrestricted personal autonomy, for one thing. And for self-justification as another. I'm sure you can add additional possible motives.[/quote]
It looks like I didn't finish my sentence, so I added in the underlined part here (not that it changes your response).
Not necessarily "pure" rationality, but we are rational creatures (taken in a broader sense), and short of the annihilation of the soul on death (which is a possibility, of course), I'm disinclined to believe there's an eternity of separation from God that would not eventually lead one to question that existence and the reasons for it. For all I know, existence after death might make one more open to certain possibilities.

Immanuel Can wrote:I guess the question becomes, then, what do we do with their dissent? If we force them to agree, or if we use government authority to coerce them, we become Inquisitors, and I think we shame the name of God.

You seem hung up on compulsion, which is not a piece of this that I can see. I think you would need to demonstrate that God doing the same thing after death that "He" presumably does during death (that is to say, make "him"self known) constitutes force. None of us would argue that continuing to search for an argument that will persuade our debate partners of the truth of a particular proposition constitutes forcing them to believe it, though we might well debate them for 40 years, ever-hoping that they see the truth of our position. this is certainly what missionaries do, is it not?

Immanuel Can wrote:I have never thought the collusion of any kind of religious persuasion with the instruments of political power is a good thing. Besides, "A man convinced against his will / Remains an unbeliever still." And as John Locke so astutely pointed out, God knows the conscience of a person. so someone who capitulates insincerely is of no value to what He wants...which is the creation of a genuine relationship, I believe.

Agreed, but I think these ultimately constitute red herrings. We're not talking about flawed human methods of persuasion, but ostensibly ones characterized by divine perfection and incapable of violating free will. Nor am I proposing insincere belief.

Immanuel Can wrote:So I think it's far from reasonable to suppose there's any way God could force a person to capitulate to His authority, and then call it "love." Or so it seems to me.

Right, and I've yet to propose this is what's happening. The burden rests with you to show how what I've proposed constitutes force. I am speaking of persuasion over the course of eternity. There is certainly no logical or metaphysical incoherence to suggest that it is at least possible for all souls to come to understand the truth, given an eternity. And if it is not logically or metaphysically impossible, it is certainly something that God can accomplish, no?

I see no reason that we must assent to the proposition that God asks only once in a lifetime and takes that answer as final.

I don't think anyone would say that's how it was. Many times, conceivably.

For all I know, existence after death might make one more open to certain possibilities.

If so, it would clearly be on quite different terms from whatever appeals God was making to people in life. If God asks people in life (as per the Christian view) to exercise faith in order to come to know Him, and values their decision to believe in Him, and rewards such decisions, how different that would be from the undeniable compulsory force of His personal presence.

Moreover, if his personal presence were sufficient to bring people into relationship with Him, then why ask them for faith at all? Why not just do what the Atheist skeptics always challenge God to do -- to show up and prove to their cynical satisfaction that He is real? What then is the point of faith at all? Then universal salvation is instantly achieved, and that without any further ado, pain or delay.

So if Universalism were true, I think the cynical Atheists would have a real case. They'd put that question to the Universalist, and then say, "Since your account of God's intentions makes no sense out of the way the world is today, is it not more rational to reject the whole idea of God?"

You seem hung up on compulsion,

I am, in this case. Universalism would make our decisions today of no importance at all. In the end, whatever we decide about God, or about how we want to live, or about who we choose to be, would be wiped out by Someone with ultimate power to do it.

I think we all instinctively know that things like freedom, individuality and choice are important values. Some of us even give up our lives to preserve them for others, so they must be pretty important. There's something really sinister about the submerging of a person's will, even if afterward they are not aware of how they've been manipulated. Or rather, it's the same concern I would have if I heard someone was lobotomizing others for fun -- the victims might not be in a state to know they'd been victimized, but their wills, identities and purposes would be destroyed nonetheless.

And if it is not logically or metaphysically impossible, it is certainly something that God can accomplish, no?

But I would suggest it is logically impossible. Some things are just contradictions. Married bachelors, new antiques, that sort of thing. I would suggest that "a free choice with only one option" is also such a contradiction. It just isn't any kind of free choice anymore.

Immanuel Can wrote:

I see no reason that we must assent to the proposition that God asks only once in a lifetime and takes that answer as final.

I don't think anyone would say that's how it was. Many times, conceivably.

Right, so it's at least conceivable that these appeals continue after death, though how would be quit the mystery.

Immanuel Can wrote:

For all I know, existence after death might make one more open to certain possibilities.

If so, it would clearly be on quite different terms from whatever appeals God was making to people in life. If God asks people in life (as per the Christian view) to exercise faith in order to come to know Him, and values their decision to believe in Him, and rewards such decisions, how different that would be from the undeniable compulsory force of His personal presence.

But that presence need not be present in a fundamentally compulsory way. In fact, it might very well be that things become harder, as one no longer has the witness of believers.

Immanuel Can wrote:Moreover, if his personal presence were sufficient to bring people into relationship with Him, then why ask them for faith at all? Why not just do what the Atheist skeptics always challenge God to do -- to show up and prove to their cynical satisfaction that He is real? What then is the point of faith at all? Then universal salvation is instantly achieved, and that without any further ado, pain or delay.

Agreed, so this is not that.

Immanuel Can wrote:So if Universalism were true, I think the cynical Atheists would have a real case. They'd put that question to the Universalist, and then say, "Since your account of God's intentions makes no sense out of the way the world is today, is it not more rational to reject the whole idea of God?"

See my last response.

Immanuel Can wrote:

You seem hung up on compulsion,

I am, in this case. Universalism would make our decisions today of no importance at all. In the end, whatever we decide about God, or about how we want to live, or about who we choose to be, would be wiped out by Someone with ultimate power to do it.

But this is not Universalism in the traditional sense. Traditionally, it goes something like "you get to the pearly gates, God lets you in anyway." This is something much more in keeping with Christian notions of how God works, with the only meaningful difference being that the soteriological perspecrive is stretched out over eternity, followed by the not-unreasonable implication that even the most stubborn can rcignize truth given that sort of timespan.

Immanuel Can wrote:There's something really sinister about the submerging of a person's will, even if afterward they are not aware of how they've been manipulated. <snip>

Which is why I'm suggesting nothing of the sort.

Immanuel Can wrote:

And if it is not logically or metaphysically impossible, it is certainly something that God can accomplish, no?

But I would suggest it is logically impossible. Some things are just contradictions. Married bachelors, new antiques, that sort of thing. I would suggest that "a free choice with only one option" is also such a contradiction. It just isn't any kind of free choice anymore.

But again, what you're debating is not what I've suggested. At all.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

I see no reason that we must assent to the proposition that God asks only once in a lifetime and takes that answer as final.

I don't think anyone would say that's how it was. Many times, conceivably.

Right, so it's at least conceivable that these appeals continue after death, though how would be quit the mystery.

Immanuel Can wrote:

For all I know, existence after death might make one more open to certain possibilities.

If so, it would clearly be on quite different terms from whatever appeals God was making to people in life. If God asks people in life (as per the Christian view) to exercise faith in order to come to know Him, and values their decision to believe in Him, and rewards such decisions, how different that would be from the undeniable compulsory force of His personal presence.

But that presence need not be present in a fundamentally compulsory way. In fact, it might very well be that things become harder, as one no longer has the witness of believers.

Immanuel Can wrote:Moreover, if his personal presence were sufficient to bring people into relationship with Him, then why ask them for faith at all? Why not just do what the Atheist skeptics always challenge God to do -- to show up and prove to their cynical satisfaction that He is real? What then is the point of faith at all? Then universal salvation is instantly achieved, and that without any further ado, pain or delay.

Agreed, so this is not that.

Immanuel Can wrote:So if Universalism were true, I think the cynical Atheists would have a real case. They'd put that question to the Universalist, and then say, "Since your account of God's intentions makes no sense out of the way the world is today, is it not more rational to reject the whole idea of God?"

See my last response.

Immanuel Can wrote:

You seem hung up on compulsion,

I am, in this case. Universalism would make our decisions today of no importance at all. In the end, whatever we decide about God, or about how we want to live, or about who we choose to be, would be wiped out by Someone with ultimate power to do it.

But this is not Universalism in the traditional sense. Traditionally, it goes something like "you get to the pearly gates, God lets you in anyway." This is something much more in keeping with Christian notions of how God works, with the only meaningful difference being that the soteriological perspecrive is stretched out over eternity, followed by the not-unreasonable implication that even the most stubborn can rcignize truth given that sort of timespan.

Immanuel Can wrote:There's something really sinister about the submerging of a person's will, even if afterward they are not aware of how they've been manipulated. <snip>

Which is why I'm suggesting nothing of the sort.

Immanuel Can wrote:

And if it is not logically or metaphysically impossible, it is certainly something that God can accomplish, no?

But I would suggest it is logically impossible. Some things are just contradictions. Married bachelors, new antiques, that sort of thing. I would suggest that "a free choice with only one option" is also such a contradiction. It just isn't any kind of free choice anymore.

But again, what you're debating is not what I've suggested. At all.

According to the "Tibetan Book of the Dead" the Deciest has 14 chances in 14 days to recognize and accept enlightenment and immortality, after that it's reincarnation in the wheel of fate, and it's up to the dead person's soul to not be afraid and turn away from the Gods.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:How will reconciliation with God take place?

How will Hitler or Stalin or Mao...or you or me...come from a position of hatred of God to a position of being willing to spend eternity with Him?

Can you suggest what the relevant process might look like?

First mistake is to believe that Hitler hated God, his whole dogma was based on the idea that God hated Jews and Negros. I'm not convinced that Stalin or Mao hated God, they just wanted to preempt God's authority. I would guess that all 3 of them fully expected to stand before God in the end to answer for their lives, and expected forgiveness for whatever sins they may have committed.

You see doc, I just don't understand this way of thinking. Hitler must have been quite insane, literally. How could anyone believe that the creator of everything would hate any part of it's creation. Does a musician hate any one of their compositions? I mean they may prefer one over another, but both the graphite and eraser were in their hand during their creation, it's just as easy to spin the pencil to the other end, then back again, replacing that sour note. No need to wait until it's completed. But then we're just men, by contrast I'm sure a creator of anything like our universe, knows of no such like or dislike. I mean if you could create life as we know it in a universe of such magnitude, wouldn't you be proud of all of it, without any relatively trivial concerns at our level?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Not so except to those who know little about Gnostic Christians.

Oh, don't worry...I know plenty -- both about Christians and about Gnostics. I've read all the foundational documents, all the way from Nag Hammadi to Pagels and Davis. Believe me, I know the difference.

There is a lot of quasi-Christian language employed in some forms of Gnosticism. But then, the film "The Matrix" employs both Christian and Gnostic terminology pretty freely, and that doesn't make "The Matrix" Christian.

Gnosticism is definitionally and theologically incompatible with Christianity. You can only have the one by co-opting the other illegitimately.

You can only have Gnostic Christianity and it's superior morals by reversing most of the Christian morality. Not surprising when a theology begins with human sacrifice the immoral notion that it is good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:One question comes to mind, do Gnostic's believe that Jesus was the son of God?

If he was a half a God then his relevance to humans is not worth much as an example of how humans should treat each other.

We cannot die for each other and to think a God would is really stupid as God, we are told, cannot die.

If Jesus was to be man's savior then God is a p**** for sending his son to fill the needs of the father.

That fact is quite demonstrable.

Regards
DL

Immanuel Can wrote:I would say that the answer to that isn't straightforward, because there isn't just one "Gnosticism," and the lingo among sects isn't identical. But I shouldn't talk for someone else.

I suppose DL could tell us what he believes about that, if he's so inclined.

We think more like this.

The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

Regards
DL