Hi folks, I didn't want to derail the other thread from the great discussion that's been going on over there, so I'll post these over here as promised.
I went to find some of the passages in my book and I saw that I had actually underlined the parts that were important for me. How convenient! I realized that most of these sections are affirmations of what I already believe, but said in a way that makes beautiful sense (which is why I love to read Lewis).
quote:Ransom: I think he made one law of that kind [not to go to the islands] in order that there might be obedience. In all these other matters what you call obeying Him is but doing what seems good in your own eyes also. Is love content with that? You do them, indeed, because they are His will, but not only because they are His will. Where can you taste the joy of obeying unless He bids you do something for which His bidding is the only reason? ...
Lady: Oh, brave Piebald, this is the best you have said yet...We cannot walk out of Maleldil's will: but He has given us a way to walk out of our will. And there could be no such way except a command like this. Out of our own will...
I love that. It's very clear to me and it's what I think of when friends or not so friendly people mention that my obedience is 'blind.'
More on that later I hope.
here's the next one that has a lot to do with our discussion of the Fall. Over here some folks said that they didn't get much out of this book because it was in opposition to LDS beliefs. I remember getting SO much out of this book, and my LDS beliefs are firmly intact and even strengthened. I don't know why, I guess I just saw it from a different perspective.
quote:Satan: He has hidden the half of what happened. Hardness came out of it but also splendour. They made with their own hands mountains higher than your Fixed Island. They made for themselves Floating Islands greater....(and he goes on). There is more. He has not told you that it was this breaking of the commandment which brought Maleldil to our world and because of which He was made man. He dare not deny it.
Lady: Do you say this, Piebald?
Ransom after some thought: I will tell you what I say. Of course good came of it. Is Maleldil a beast that we can stop His path, or a leaf that we can twist His shape? Whatever you do, He will make good of it. But not the good He had prepared for you if you had obeyed Him. That is lost for ever.
emphasis added.
This made so much sense to me, mostly in my own life. But it also made sense to me in relation to the Fall. While I believe that it was necessary for us to become mortal (in the LDS sense of the Fall) and therefore necessary for Adam and Eve to fall, I have to admit that there was a commandment there. A commandment that was broken. The Savior was prepared to come and God knew that this was the choice that Adam and Eve would make...but I really love to think about what God's plan A was. ? What was it?
When I think of it harder, the question is irrelevant because of what I believe about the Fall. But these words in this book were profound to me, they were very personal. I know there have been times in my life where I have made choices that weren't the best for me, that weren't God's will. When Ransom says "He brought good of it in the end. But what [ I ] did was not good; and what [ I ] lost we have not seen." I think there are cases in my life where I won't see what I lost.
But, it is THIS that illustrates to me how loving and wonderful God is. He will make "good of it," whatever I do. Now, for me it means He will make good of it as long as I am doing what I can and seeking help.
quote:He was in God's hands. As long as he did his best--and he had done his best--God would see to the final issue. He had not succeeded. But he had done his best. No one could do more. "Tis not in mortals to command success." He must not be worried about the final result.
I can think of the Fall as Adam and Even doing their best (which I believe they did) and God making the best of what their best was. I do think that it was always God's plan to have us progress and have this life here on earth, and He made that happen. This was another really important lesson for me to learn in my own life, especially on my mission. When I would freak out about 'ruining God's plan' because I did something wrong, or missed an appointment, I was assuming that it was I that had the power. That last quote, along with the earlier "Is Maleldil a beast that we can stop His path, or a leaf that we can twist His shape?" were important truths for me to learn so that I could be content with my best and 'walk out of my will.'
Anyway, that's a little of what I got out of this beautiful book. It probably doesn't make any sense at all (I'm not very articulate), but those are a few of my favorite quotes.
[edits for spelling]
[ August 11, 2005, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I like this. I don't think there _is_ really a plan beyond simply setting the stage; I think practically everything is up to us (which is a good thing). A set plan implies divine foreknowledge, which I think is incompatible with free will.
Instead of setting up a specified number of pins (ie, appointments) to knock down, I think, like you said, God always offers us simply hope and encouragement, and constant possibility. For me, it's less a tally sheet of good things/bad things than it is a process of growth.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Good choices, Narnia.
The second one especially... I am arguing with a friend right now who wants a reason to believe...wants to know how it will make his life different because, as he and I both agree, you cannot simply command God (if He exists), who clearly allows suffering in the lives of those who follow Him as well as those who don't... and in apparently equal amounts. But I seized on the problem of suffering and said that we have two choices-- to believe that suffering is pointless, or to believe that there is a Being that can and does bring purpose and goodness out of suffering in the end. I have experienced the latter, so I believe and have genuine hope that it is the case for the world at large, rather than just my little corner of it.
Matt, as an example of how it is possible to have foreknowledge and still keep freewill, picture this:
The perfect platoon leader, who knows his troops perfectly, is tasked to defend a position. He knows how his men will perform... which will carry out their assigned duties and which will shirk them... even that some will outright betray their posts and who that will be... and deploys them, in time and space, such that his battle plan will work... taking advantage of even the ones who will fail to do as they are assigned to bring about the end result he is seeking. He may assign some of them impossible tasks, knowing that it is beyond their strength to do what they are asked, but knowing that their efforts and sacrifice will be enough to allow other important parts of his plan to be effected.
This planning and foreknowledge does not in any way take from the freedom or responsibility of the individual men.
Make sense?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But I seized on the problem of suffering and said that we have two choices-- to believe that suffering is pointless, or to believe that there is a Being that can and does bring purpose and goodness out of suffering in the end.
This is, I suspect, the primary reason people still believe in God.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Matt, as an example of how it is possible to have foreknowledge and still keep freewill, picture this:
The perfect platoon leader, who knows his troops perfectly, is tasked to defend a position. He knows how his men will perform... which will carry out their assigned duties and which will shirk them...
Ah, that's the way James Talmadge, an LDS theologian, gets around the problem. But it's not _really_ foreknowledge, is it? It's simply prediction - very good prediction, perhaps, but prediction nonetheless, that by definition cannot be certain. I think God is within time, and therefore is not omniscient in the classical sense. But I'm okay with that. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I don't... obviously
I think time is the window through which we see the truth of freewill.
If you could travel at the speed of light, or stand on the event horizon of a black hole, the entire history of the universe would appear to be simultaneous to you (time dilation becomes infinite).
I think, personally, that is how things really are, and time is just how things appear to our consciousness.
But that's just my pet theory.
How would you define the difference between "perfect" prediciton and "foreknowledge"?
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Matt, are you LDS? (just curious)
quote: I think God is within time, and therefore is not omniscient in the classical sense.
Neal A. Maxwell referenced Joseph Smith in this talk when he said:
quote:Actually, God has the past, present, and future ever before Him, constituting an “eternal ‘now’
I don't pretend to know what that means pertaining to the foreknowledge thing, but I definitely believe that God is omniscient in every sense of the word. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Wow Jim-me. Your 'pet theory' is what one of the LDS apostles has stated to be fact! That makes me smile. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
If there is no time at all, why is it easier to know the past than to know the future?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I believe God is outside time. I believe He knows what will happen because past, present, and future are all before him.
Edit: Narnia wins again! Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
well... it's not quite so proprietary as I make it sound...
steven, it's not that time doesn't exist, but that it's a dimension along which we move and change shape... just as we (can) move and change shape along the axis of our height.
But unlike the axis of our height, we can only "see" the point at which our consciousness exists and, also unlike it, our consciousness seems to proceed through this axis continuously and in a particular direction, so we can only remember the part of it which we have moved through... which we call "the past".
Or, shorter answer, "I don't really know." Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
You rang?
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:Or, shorter answer, "I don't really know."
Yeah. This is my answer too.
Faith comes in mighty handy at times like this. [edit to add: 'this statement applies to me personally' so that people don't think I'm squashing inquiry into truth.]
[ August 11, 2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Cecily - Yep, I am LDS.
Elders Maxwell and McConkie were supporters of absolute omniscience; Talmadge and Brigham Young supported predictive foreknowledge. Joseph Smith was actually here and there on the topic. So we can find support for a variety of positions here.
Personally, it seems to me that if God knew for a surity before my birth that on March 22, 2008, I would shoplift a candy bar, my own moral agency is compromised. This means that my future is fixed before I was born; there's nothing I can do to _avoid_ stealing the candy bar. Thus, am I really responsible for doing so? This conception of absolute foreknowledge, I think, stems from Greek conceptions of God as absolutely immutable.
But we know from, for example, the Old Testament that God hopes Israel will turn to him after certain calamities; when they don't, he feels grief and disappointment. So God is not immutable; he reacts to our free choices.
Blake Ostler, currently probably the leading LDS theologian, explains predictive foreknowledge in this way. I think he's probably right.
quote:God has certain knowledge that his plan will be fulfilled in the future. That probabalistic knowledge is not certain, but it is knowledge of probabilities, and in addition some physical processes undoubtedly limit and determine some outcomes (e.g, God can know that the sun will come appear over the horizon from our perspective tomorrow -- and he could change that if he wanted to but he also knows that he won't change it). So even though God doesn't know what free persons will do, there is a very large range of phenomena that can be predicted with great accuracy. What God predicts are usually elements of his plan that he will insure comes about.
God didn't intervene to "cause" the Romans to crucify Christ; they freely chose to crucify him. Yet given human nature it was highly probable that Christ's light would provoke a violent response. The Romans freely chose to be provoked by Christ and it was foreseeable with high probability that they would freely react as they did.
God knows _his_ future actions, without a doubt. And he also knows that his work will succeed. And he's smart enough to shape those things around our reactions.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote from narnia: "Faith comes in mighty handy at times like this."
there's a quote by Jascha Heifetz that goes someting like, "whatever side you choose in an argument, there will always be someone on your side who you wish was on the other side."
I wonder what Osama bin Laden would say about the time question I raised? Would it sound something like Narnia's answer? Hmm...
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:I wonder what Osama bin Laden would say about the time question I raised? Would it sound something like Narnia's answer? Hmm...
I'm pretty close to calling a foul here. But I'll give you a chance to explain what this is supposed to mean first.
quote:there's a quote by Jascha Heifetz that goes someting like, "whatever side you choose in an argument, there will always be someone on your side who you wish was on the other side."
So, therefore, all sides in all arguments are wrong?
Posted by Sister Annie (Member # 8480) on :
As sacrilegious as it is, the illustration that has best helped me understand how God can see time as "one eternal now" is that of the aliens in Slaughterhouse Five. I'll probably find out how silly it is of me to think of it that way someday, but for now it really works for me.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote from MattB:
"So, therefore, all sides in all arguments are wrong?"
Who are you asking?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:As sacrilegious as it is, the illustration that has best helped me understand how God can see time as "one eternal now" is that of the aliens in Slaughterhouse Five.
Woah. I'm the exact same way.
Well, almost. When I started thinking about God that way, I went back to those ideas that I first got from Slaughterhouse Five.
Some similar ideas were discussed in another book I had to read for English class -- Grendel.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Wow... two posts into the thread before you compare Narnia to, arguably, the most wanted Criminal on earth.
That tact thing is still escaping you, isn't it, Steven? and of course, God forbid we should express a little humility when discussing the unknowable and say "this is just our best guess..."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Sister Annie--in fact, I often think of that very book when I think of time, etc. I in fact believe that the universe looks like this, from the no-time perspective:
roll your mouse and left-click and drag to rotate it. Look at it from both the side and the top/bottom.
There are only 5 such vortexes, each corresponding to one of the 5 Platonic Solids. Looking at it from the top, connect the intersections of the lines with straight lines to all other points, and you get a Platonic solid.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Jim, I actually sort of agree with your perspective. I just like to slap down those who would squash inquiry into truth. There's not that big a jump from "faith" to "sword of God" to "regular old sword".
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Seeing as she started the thread, how do you see her as squashing the inquiry into truth...? That's what religion is about!
And I would put forth to you that those are both enormous jumps.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One analysis of the use of the lack of free will and the sight of all time at once in Slaughterhouse 5 was that it was Vonnegut's attempt to present what he considered the only possible justification for Dresden. I.e., the only way one can accept what happened is if one decides that all events are beyond everyone's control.
Not that this changes its suitability for comparison here. I just think it's an interesting way to show outrage.
By the way, steven, villification of others and their views squashes inquiry into truth like few other things.
Except maybe a lack of organ meats in ones diet, of course.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:I wonder what Osama bin Laden would say about the time question I raised? Would it sound something like Narnia's answer?
Well, since none of my answers in this thread were to your question, I guess it impossible to know. My posts were directed to Jim-me or Matt.
quote:I just like to slap down those who would squash inquiry into truth.
Nice slap. Who was 'squashing inquiry' might I ask? Was it me and Jim when we ventured to say "I don't know?"
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Free Will and the sovereignty of God. Christians have been discussing it and arguing it for centuries.
Personally, I agree with what is outlined by RC Sproul in the following link:
quote:To aid understanding we need to consider two models, two images of God, which lead to serious distortions of the divine character. First is the image of God as a puppeteer. Here God manipulates the strings of marionettes. The feet and the arms of the puppets jerk and dance as God pulls the strings. Puppets have no will. They have no heart or soul. Their bodies are filled with sawdust. If God were like this, not even the Wizard of Oz could make us truly free.
The second image of God is of the spectator. Here God sits on the sidelines of world history. He observes the game closely. He makes careful notes about the action and will turn in a scouting report. He is the ultimate armchair quarterback. He second-guesses the plays that are called. He roots for His favorite team. However, He is powerless to affect the outcome of the game in any way. The action is on the field, and He's not playing. This model of God destroys His sovereignty. The spectator God is a God who reigns but never rules. He is a God without authority. He observes history but is not Lord over history.
Obviously, I don't think either of these is correct. So, there can't be absolute freedom for man - he still has to be subject to God's will. But how does that affect our own freedom to make choices?
The answer, I think, is that God foreordains, but does not coerce events.
Sproul explains it this way:
quote:Foreordain does not mean coerce. It simply means that God wills that something take place. He may will future events through the free choices of creatures. This is the great mystery of providence - that God can will the means as well as the ends of future events. God can even will good through the wicked choices of men.
For example, Sproul brings up the Crucifixion. God foreordained that Christ would be crucified. Was Pilate his puppet then, when he freed Barrabbas and crucified Christ? Was it Pilate's own choice?
quote:Pilate succumbed to the howling crowd, not because God coerced him, but because Pilate was too weak to withstand the demands of the mob.
The outcome of God's eternal plan of redemption did not hinge finally on the decision of Pontius Pilate. What if Pilate had released Jesus and crucified Barabbas instead? Such a thought is almost unthinkable. It would suggest that God was only a spectator in the plan of redemption, that He hoped for the best but had no control over the events.
God did more than hope for the Cross. He willed the Cross. Jesus was delivered by the determinate forecounsel of God.
So what is the relationship between man's will and God's will? Both exist, but man's will is always subordinate to God's will.
quote:God is sovereign. Man is free. Man's freedom is limited, however, by God's sovereignty. God's sovereignty is not limited by man's freedom. This is simply to say that man is not God. God is free and man is free. But God is more free than a man. Man's freedom is always and everywhere subordinate to God's freedom.
Now, I'll turn to Charles Spurgeon for a very important point on the matter of salvation itself. It's been said in criticism that reformed Christians think that God arbitrarily just chooses people, forces them to convert in defiance of their own free wills, and then damns the rest to hell. That's a distortion of Reformed teaching, because it goes back to the puppeteer analogy and assumes that reformed Christians think man has no free will at all. Not so. I can't put it more beautifully than Spurgeon, so I'll quote him:
quote:MAN'S WILL HAS ITS PROPER PLACE IN THE MATTER OF SALVATION. "Whosoever will let him come and take the water of life freely." According to this and many other texts the Scripture where man is addressed as a being having a will, it appears clear enough that men are not saved by compulsion. When a man receives the grace of Christ, he does not receive it against his will. No man shall be pardoned while he abhors the though forgiveness. No man shall have joy in the Lord if he says, "I do not wish to rejoice in the Lord." Do not think that anybody shall have the angels pushing them behind into the gates of heaven. They must go there freely or else they will never go there at all.
I bolded that sentence because I just love it. It's one of my favorites.
What we believe is that no one turns to Christ on his own unless that person has been regenerated through the grace of the Holy Spirit. We believe man has a will, yet while that man is in bondage to sin that will rejects God and will not turn to him on his own. Man must be regenerated from within before he can accept the gift of grace. It does not mean, however, that we think man turns to that gift of grace against his will.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Hm. I'm late again. Well said Dag. (And Belle. I'm really late!)
quote:Foreordain does not mean coerce. It simply means that God wills that something take place. He may will future events through the free choices of creatures. This is the great mystery of providence - that God can will the means as well as the ends of future events. God can even will good through the wicked choices of men.
I believe that. Like you, I'm not willing to accept either of those first two explanations. I simply don't believe that God lacks power in any sense of the word. I don't believe that He's not all-knowing. I think He can orchestrate things like a brilliant chess player times infinity. He can see the consequences of all the future moves and makes His plan accordingly. It doesn't mean that He takes away the ability to choose, but He knows us perfectly.
quote:This is the great mystery of providence
When I say that faith comes in handy, it's a personal statement (note the edit above.) I choose to believe that there are some mysteries that I just cannot explain with my limited comprehension and knowledge.
Thanks for those quotes Belle. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Spanish Inquisition. Catholics should bring their thick skin into religious discussions with me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Narnia isn't Catholic.
And you should bring a little courtesy and respect into religious discussions.
With anybody.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dag, I don't really eat organ meats. If you'll notice, Dr. Price said that all tribes said shellfish were better, and the Masai, who ate organ meats, were too tall and thin. If you want to argue Dr. Price's stuff, check the thread on Price. Everybody else has backed down.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Steven, that post about the Spanish Inquisition was completely inappropriate.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Steven, everyone needs to bring their thick skin into discussions with you, from what I've seen.
And what does the inquisition have to do with anything? Unless you're suggesting that the actions of a small segment of a population are valid reason for painting the entirety of that population that way?
That's hella-inductive reasoning, my man, as well as a little thing I was taught to call "prejudice".
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I was referring to you, Dag, when I said Catholic. and Jim-Me. And anybody who felt any sting when I said "spanish inquisition." Most of us on these forums have a Protestant background.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
*bump* to point out my edits above so that steven doesn't think I'm 'squashing' inquiry into truth. (Sorry I keep using that phrase, I just like it.)
[ August 11, 2005, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dag cheated when he brought up the organ meats.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Oh, great, steven. This is going to be productive.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Thanks, Belle. That's interesting.
quote:The answer, I think, is that God foreordains, but does not coerce events.
I wonder if you could elaborate on the difference between these. By foreordination, do you mean something similar to how Ostler describes the Crucifixion in the quotation I posted? IE, that God was able to predict what would happen in Israel at that point, and timed his own actions to fit with the currents of history and ensure that his plan was carried out, rather than directly influencing human action?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Jim-Me--you're just about dead on. Most everyone gets nailed when I'm on the warpath. But I can be pretty decent. If you had a sick kid, I'd be the first to try and help, just like I did with Pete at Home on Ornery. His son had some kind of mercury poisoning, and I suggested a product that I thought might help the little guy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was referring to you, Dag, when I said Catholic. and Jim-Me. And anybody who felt any sting when I said "spanish inquisition." Most of us on these forums have a Protestant background.
A. I don't feel stings from gnats. There are people on this board capable of rhetorically stinging me. You, to date, have not demonstrated such a capability.
B. Was your post simply a non-sequitur, then? You insult Narnia with a reference to OBL and then, what, decided to have a go at the Catholics, too?
quote:Dag cheated when he brought up the organ meats.
Yeah, that's way worse than comparing someone to one of the most villified men in America (the villification, not the man, is in America).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Steven -- doing something nice does not give you license to act like a louse elsewhere.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Narnia, edit all you want. I responded to the intent and tone of the original post. Anything that even vaguely smacks of favoring Catholicism over Mormonism is going to get a reaction from me here, for 2 reasons.
1. this site is named after books about Alvin Maker, who is clearly modelled after Joseph Smith.
2. Mormons are no worse than Catholics, in their response to dissent, that I can see.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Do you think you make sense when you post these things, steven?
I'm honestly curious as to what you think you're saying when you do this.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
[to steven] THE ORIGINAL POST WAS NOT EVEN RESPONDING TO YOU. And how dare you imply that you know the 'intent and tone' of my post? You don't even know me! I wasn't even talking to you!
And as for the Mormon/Catholic crap, what are you TALKING about?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dag, you're just dogpiling. Can't beat me on the Price thread, so you've decided to come after me elsewhere.
Seriously, I'm having a crappy day. I've been looking forward to going out tonight for a week, but the young lady in question is sick with food poisoning. I took the evening off from work just to go out with her. Big fun.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So it's not just me having trouble following him, then.
Good.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Steven, is what Narnia posted really all it takes to make you go "on the warpath?"
I am reminded of that site about ninjas flipping out and killing a town because someone dropped a spoon...
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
steven is from Ornery? That explains a lot. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, you're just dogpiling. Can't beat me on the Price thread, so you've decided to come after me elsewhere.
I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to put it to a vote as to whether you were "beaten" or not in the Price thread, although I will gladly acknowledge the work of others before my own in that regard.
quote:Seriously, I'm having a crappy day. I've been looking forward to going out tonight for a week, but the young lady in question is sick with food poisoning. I took the evening off from work just to go out with her. Big fun.
And this gives you the right to be mean to my friends here how?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
steven is:
1) A mammal 2) steven fights all the time 3) steven flips out and tries to kill people
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Can't beat me on the Price thread...
Dude, people stopped posting to it because you were pretty completely beaten. They stopped out of pity. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Ninjas? When did we get onto ninjas?
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
*whispers* Folks (not steven), please tell me what about anything I've said has anything to do with what steven has said. What was it I said that made him compare me to Osama Bin Laden? The faith comment? Was there something politically incorrect in that? Was it offensive? (I'll apologize if it was, but I really am confused.)
What was it I said that made him think someone is comparing Catholocism to Mormonism? Please, clue me in. I'm baffled.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ninjas? When did we get onto ninjas?
When did we get into terrorists?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Ninjas? When did we get onto ninjas?
When it was realized that you flip out and fight all the time.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Tom,
I gave up on the microcluster comments because I'm still refining my views. As far as Price finding that diet influenced crookedness of teeth, I kind of thought that had been decided.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Narnia, I'm as clueless as you are. Steven's comments seem completely random to me. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As far as Price finding that diet influenced crookedness of teeth, I kind of thought that had been decided.
We know that's what you thought. It's why most of us decided that further discussion was pointless, because you couldn't see why others might not think it was decided.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I believe it had been decided that 1. The scanty evidence was inconclusive, and 2. There is no proven connection between health and straight teeth.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
This is how ninjas apply... I was comparing your seeming sensitivity to the anecdote about the ninja killing a town because someone dropped a spoon.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I have come to the conclusion that steven is mildly mentally deficient. I'm sure he's functional and literate, but he seems completely unable to understand logic and reason. He also seems to be caught up in some kind of fantasy world he's created. I've never met anyone like that before and seen them discuss any subjedt at length, so it is interesting.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dag, I thought that when we put together
1. The sudden increase in height from 1st generation to 2nd generation Chinese
2. the better health and strength of the shorter Dinka, versus the taller (over 7 feet, in many cases) Masai
We showed that
a. taller isn't always healthier, and
b. diet has a large effect on skeletal structre.
If a and b are true, I think it's maybe, considering Pottenger's work with cats, not that far a jump to assume that diet can have a large effect horizontally as well as vertically on skeletal structure. I thought we decided this. Am I confused?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Jon Boy--if you didn't think I was right after you read the link about the Dinka and Masai, you could have kept going. I took the fact that you gave up as a sign that I had convinced you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We decided, I believe, that it was plausible, but that no rigorous statistical analysis had been done that would determine if the two were correlated, much less one caused the others.
It was your refusal to recognize this that made most everyone give up.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Am I confused?
I think I can speak for everyone when I say: YES! Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Well, I *was* enjoying this thread....
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I took the fact that you gave up as a sign that I had convinced you.
This would be really funny except that I think steven might actually be telling the truth.
It's like something my Pappy used to say: "Don't try to teach engineering to a pig. It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not sure - he was "done with" the thread at one point after Jon Boy had made a particularly pointed barb about tautologies.
He may honestly remember that being what he took JB's silence as a sign for, but I doubt he actually did at the time.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:Well, I *was* enjoying this thread....
Yeah, me too. I'm tempted to delete it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I apologize for my part in the diversion, Narnia.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Nobody has even bothered to read the links I made in the Price thread. If I post a link 2 times on the same discussion page, I assume that people read it. Here it is again:
The discussion about Price is going to be hard to continue without a clear, point-by-point discussion of this link.
I learned in science class that it only takes 3 data points to draw a line. Dozens, not just 3, of tribes all said the same things:
1. shellfish are the best food
2. organ meats are 2nd best
3. other fatty parts are a close 3rd.
Data points, data points. What are the odds?
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Don't apologize Dag. I contributed too and actually let myself get mad. Shame on me.
You guys were sweet to point out that I'm not like Osama Bin Laden and I appreciate the effort we all put in to logically discuss things. Seems like it doesn't work. *sigh*
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
So... back to Perelandra...?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Data points, data points. What are the odds?
The same odds that said, "Oxygen for preemies is a good thing." There was every reason to think so, and very well meaning, very smart doctors who gave preemies oxygen in an attempt to help them.
Until someone studied the data with statistical methods and realized that, actually, it causes blindness.
If I recall correctly, it was one of the incidents that led to general acceptance of epidemiological studies by the medical establishment.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dag, I'm getting a little tired of the personal attracks.
I never thought, and you know it, that Jon Boy was convinced of the microcluster thing. I thought he was convinced that diet controls crookedness of teeth. You know that. What is with the cheating?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think this thread has strengthened my resolve to read Perelandria again. Soon. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I know, I've been feeling the same way Bev. I read them about 18 months ago (when lovely Annie gave them to me for Christmas!) but I've forgotten a lot.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
OK, I just got compared with people who made babies blind. That's beyond the pale. All I'm suggesting is that maybe a diet high in twinkies and McDonald's grain-fed beef burgers causes crooked teeth and other more serious health issues. If I were wrong, and the diet didn't work,
Screw it, I give. Dag isn't interested in the truth.
I just hope everybody else sees that he is being about as real as a 3-dollar bill on the Price issue.
If you don't see that, I was wasting my time talking about it anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What is with the cheating?
I'm not. You have misrepresented Bob - willingly and unashamedly, and I didn't notice a timely apology. You were making a fairly unbelievable claim about Jon Boy, one I doubt any one else sees as supported by the evidence. I don't know that you thought he was convinced with respect to crookedness of teeth or that you thought he wasn't with respect to microclusters.
In short, it's terribly difficult to tell what you think because you don't seem to engage in honest discourse.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: OK, I just got compared with people who made babies blind.
No you didn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:OK, I just got compared with people who made babies blind. That's beyond the pale.
No, you didn't get compared with people who made babies blind. A scientific mistake you made was compared to a scientific mistake made by doctors in the first half of the last century. It's a very famous incident, one taught to underscore the importance of statistical methods in epedemiological research.
In case you didn't know, the whole Price book is about epidemiological research. It's an absolutely appropos comparison. And the incident underscores the dangers inherent in lack of rigorous scientific analysis.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
mph--ask Dag. He knows. He posted it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Steven, stop mucking up Narnia's thread and take it outside.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:mph--ask Dag. He knows. He posted it.
If that's your standard then you must now acknowledge I did not, in fact, compare you to doctors who made babies blind.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dag--I no longer think you're arguing the issues. You're coming after me as a person. I can't say that I haven't earned it on the overpopulation thread, but I deleted that thread. When you can forget that thread, I can forget your comparison of me to baby killers.
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
This discussion isn't going anywhere...
But, that Ninja site is the most hilarious thing I've seen in months!!!
Thanks Jim-Me! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag--I no longer think you're arguing the issues. You're coming after me as a person. I can't say that I haven't earned it on the overpopulation thread, but I deleted that thread. When you can forget that thread, I can forget your comparison of me to baby killers.
Now we're up to baby killers? In point of fact, the doctors very likely saved most of those preemies' lives.
Why do you so often ignore the actual substantive responses to your content? I cited what is pretty much the landmark case relevant to the type of research being discussed, and somehow I did something wrong? I don't think so.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
One word--pottenger.
Oh, and every Africa-raised black person I've ever met has perfect teeth and really nice cheekbones. That just isn't true for the twinkie-scarfers who grew up in the USA.
That kind of convinces me more than anything.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Should "pottenger" mean something to me?
quote:That kind of convinces me more than anything.
We know. This is why most despaired of getting you to see the principle objections to Price's work.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I appologize to Narnia for responding to steven at all in this thread.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by RoyHobbs: This discussion isn't going anywhere...
But, that Ninja site is the most hilarious thing I've seen in months!!!
Thanks Jim-Me!
*bows*
Narnia, would you like to continue discussion of Perelandra by e-mail perhaps? We can include people who were actually interested in the topic...
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dag--do you actually think that there are tons of crooked-toothed kids and teenagers dying left and right in every case in all these traditional tribes? Do you really believe that the crooked-toothed ones die out before adulthood? If that were true, why did ALL of Pottenger's deficiently fed cats die before reproducing in the 3rd generation, and ALL of his correctly-fed cats have perfect teeth and skeletons through the generations?
here's the Wiki:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottenger
there are other pages on him, and the cat study.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
steven,
Of all the people on this thread I am the one most likely to ridicule you with personal attacks. As it is, I have abstained from any such comments because I'm afraid you'll take it as a compliment or proof that eating babies makes people smell better.
Dag is a freaking saint, believe me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dooooon't Feeeeeeed the Trooooooolls...........
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Please don't delete the thread - can y'all start over from before the derailment? I just got Perelandra in the mail a few weeks but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. This is very interesting.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
If you're so intent on discussing cats and teeth and organ meat again, why don't you go start yet another thread about it? Heaven knows we haven't had enough.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're right, Bev and Kat.
Someone commented that the responsibility of those who do God's will is to make the attempt - honestly and with full effort - and that no moral blame attaches for success or failure.
This has always been very comforting to me. Although I doubt I actually do give full effort whenever I should, this is something I can control (with God's help, of course). The idea could be taken too far and used to excuse inadequate attempts, but I think all moral principles can be used to justify immoral actions in some way or another.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Ransom: I think he made one law of that kind [not to go to the islands] in order that there might be obedience. In all these other matters what you call obeying Him is but doing what seems good in your own eyes also. Is love content with that? You do them, indeed, because they are His will, but not only because they are His will. Where can you taste the joy of obeying unless He bids you do something for which His bidding is the only reason? ...
Lady: Oh, brave Piebald, this is the best you have said yet...We cannot walk out of Maleldil's will: but He has given us a way to walk out of our will. And there could be no such way except a command like this. Out of our own will...
Narnia's first quoted passage spoke very strongly to me from the first time I read it and it was a great answer. The concept that free obedience was the purpose behind freewill is a beautiful one, rooted in love, and one of the most romantic notions I have yet seen. This passage, more than any other, made me feel the sense of God as Suitor and Church, that is "us", as bride, even though it doesn't address that at all.
There's such dramatic build-up around the question "why would God make an arbitrary law?" (they are discussing the parallel, in this new Eden, to "don't eat the fruit") that giving away the final answer almost qualifies as a spoiler...
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
this link has nothing to do with cats, or teeth.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I don't want to get in the habit of directing thread content in general, but I've gotten a few requests on this thread specifically. Without commenting specifically on the propriety of any posts in this thread, or on the idea of topic drift in general, I simply ask at this time that any conversation on topics unrelated to the original post be relegated to another thread, be it new or revived.
Thank you in advance.
--PJ
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Someone commented that the responsibility of those who do God's will is to make the attempt - honestly and with full effort - and that no moral blame attaches for success or failure.
This has always been very comforting to me. Although I doubt I actually do give full effort whenever I should, this is something I can control (with God's help, of course). The idea could be taken too far and used to excuse inadequate attempts, but I think all moral principles can be used to justify immoral actions in some way or another.
In my example with the perfect platoon leader, I noted that some of the tasks might be impossible. I recall something I got in an e-mail once about God telling someone to go try to move a giant boulder. After years of this, day in day out struggle, the boulder hadn't budged an inch and our hero, frustrated beyond tolerance, lashed out at God, "why did you give me a task you knew I couldn't do?" And God answered something to the effect of "look how strong your arms have gotten."
I am also reminded of Theoden's words "No... we cannot win... but we will fight!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The concept that free obedience was the purpose behind freewill is a beautiful one, rooted in love, and one of the most romantic notions I have yet seen.
The notion of experiencing obedience is brought up in another Lewis passage, I think Mere Christianity, where he says one of the purposes of the Incarnation was to allow God to experience perfect obedience, so he could help us do it. Otherwise, how could he experience perfect obedience?
It's offered not as doctrine but as a way of thinking about it. I find that very powerful. It involves not just a reason for the Incarnation, but also embodies more of the delicacy of an all-powerful God helping people while still allowing free will.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:one of the purposes of the Incarnation was to allow God to experience perfect obedience, so he could help us do it. Otherwise, how could he experience perfect obedience?
The thought that Christ endured all that God is asking us to endure is a great source of comfort.
I had a huge long post typed out and lost it. Grrrr.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I swear there's not even ONE CAT on that page.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Here's another quote that I love:
quote:Lady [to Satan]: But if this concerns me so deeply, why does He put none of this into my mind? It is all coming from you, Stranger. There is no whisper, even, of the Voice saying Yes to your words.
I love that. Dag and folks, what are your beliefs about personal revelation like she's referring to in this passage?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I just think it's cool that (I heard this from a friend, don't sue me if it's not accurate) that the Hindus believe that the asteroid belt between the orbits of Jupiter and Mars used to be a planet before it was destroyed accidentally in a war. Then, later, Mars was populated. It got scoured, then came earth. Next, Venus. The destruction is less each time.
Is Lewis really a Hindu?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
To Dag: I agree that it is a beautiful idea.
Maybe my feelings about the book are colored by my life experiences. My mother is by nature extremely obedient. She would be just like the Lady in Perelandrea. She expected her children to love obedience as well. To a large extent, she raised a group of 6 extremely well behaved, tame, calm, peaceful children.
If anyone was an exception, I was.
I was the child who hated to follow instruction or advise *unless* it made sense to me. If it made sense, I would follow. If it didn't, I would tend to rebel. Well, that, and if I wanted to rebel for other reasons.
So I had to learn the hard way because I wouldn't learn the easy way. And I learned. I gained a lot of wisdom through it. I am not willing to comment on whether my way was better than my Mom's way--I have no opinion on the matter, really. Only that we each took the path that was in our nature to take and ended up in similar places with similar conclusions. Not the same, to be sure, but similar. I think we each took the path we *needed* to take, the only one that made sense for us to take, given our natures and personalities.
If someone had forced me to not make those mistakes by removing my free will, I think that would have been wrong, perhaps even evil. I wouldn't have learned anything.
I like to imagine God equally accepting of Narnia's concept of plan A or plan B. Because whichever path is chosen, that is the one that that child needed to take--and God can make good come of either one.
Granted, I still believe that if a child continually rejects God and True Principles, nothing good can come to them in the end, and that good will come to them to the extent that they accept the True Principles God guards, represents, teaches, and upholds.
It is my hope that people who do chose to rebel will in time learn wisdom from that rebellion and will in the end come to love God and His law. But the choice is theirs, not mine.
Perhaps those that are quickest to obey are the most blessed. That would mean my Mom is better off than I.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:Perhaps those that are quickest to obey are the most blessed. That would mean my Mom is better off than I.
Not necessarily. I think that God values our agency so highly that He rejoices in our learning process, even if it takes some wrong choices to get us to trust in Him.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narnia:
quote:Perhaps those that are quickest to obey are the most blessed. That would mean my Mom is better off than I.
Not necessarily. I think that God values our agency so highly that He rejoices in our learning process, even if it takes some wrong choices to get us to trust in Him.
In some ways, she has been blessed because of that. Think of all the pain that you have endured during the periods of time that you were learning how to obey. Your mother never experienced that.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
True. God likes the process, but He doesn't take the pain away. There's this scripture in the BofM:
quote:13 And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh arepentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and bendureth• to the end the same shall be saved.
14 And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?
15 Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty.
16 Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.
So we will be more blessed if we trustingly obey...I guess part of me wants to believe that I'm not missing out on blessings when I'm a little stubborn. I suppose that's unrealistic. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I guess we both come through with different strengths and weaknesses. It is true that I can endure far more than she can--though there are so many other factors that probably cause that to be so.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Haven't there been times in your lives where it is clear that you've done something wrong, but what you learned during the process made it seem like that sin was necessary for you to be who you are? (I'm hoping that it's not just me. )
I guess that goes back to the "God will make the best out of your choices" doctrine on which Lewis based Ransom's closing argument.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ooo, there's also the Prodigal Son. The Prodigal got a party that the righteous son never got. But the righteous son got to have his inheritance.
Which is better in the end? The inheritance, hands down.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Aren't discussions about what God wants or likes pointless? It's like amoeba arguing about the US economy. They'll never get it right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We certainly wouldn't want to detain you with pointless discussion. I promise we won't feel insulted if you don't participate.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Ooo, there's also the Prodigal Son. The Prodigal got a party that the righteous son never got. But the righteous son got to have his inheritance.
Which is better in the end? The inheritance, hands down.
Yeah I guess. A good party though....
Seriously though, that's a good example. God has said that He will remember our sins no more and that through the blood of Christ we can be washed clean. I remember my mother saying once "Well why try to be good then if everyone who repents of sins that I never commited is going to be just as well off as I am?" It's a valid question, but I don't think that we who commit those sins will be better off than those who don't commit the same sins, even though we're forgiven and good comes of our mistakes. We'll never know what the difference would have been, which is why I think Lewis was right when he had Ransom say "what they lost we have not seen."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In the Silmarillion, Tolkien writes about one of the Valar saying how much good will come out of the evil acts commited by the Noldor
But Mandos (I believe) says something like, "And yet remain evil.")
I think both halves of that are crucial, which is where the big divide about the Fall between LDS and other denominations resides, I think.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yup, which is why I intend to be as good as I can from now on.
Well, sometimes anyway. To be honest, there is still too much of the rebel in me.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
mmm, explain what you mean there Dag.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Maybe we Mormons are just trying to overcompensate for all the flack Eve's been getting throughout history. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:mmm, explain what you mean there Dag.
I don't think it's part of most Christians' beliefs that evil is ever necessary, and most consider the acts of Adam and Eve to be definitely evil.
So despite the immense good of the Incarnation, the acts which necessitated it remain evil. And a great good, different than the Incarnation, was lost to us and to God.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
This is exactly why Perelandra caused such a disconnect in my head when I read it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Narnia: Here's another quote that I love:
quote:Lady [to Satan]: But if this concerns me so deeply, why does He put none of this into my mind? It is all coming from you, Stranger. There is no whisper, even, of the Voice saying Yes to your words.
I love that. Dag and folks, what are your beliefs about personal revelation like she's referring to in this passage?
I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it personal revelation, but I definitely feel the idomatic expression "it rings true." When I read something that resonates with me, like the passages we are discussing, I swear to you I can almost hear something like music dancing just at the edge of my consciousness.
Steven, your toroid is one example of what a solid objet might look like if we could perceive all dimensions simultaneously... and Lewis might be influenced by Hindu beliefs on the subject, but it seems more Greco-Roman, as he essentially theorizes that the Greek Gods were actually the ruling spirits of their respective planets for this trilogy.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I wonder if you could elaborate on the difference between these. By foreordination, do you mean something similar to how Ostler describes the Crucifixion in the quotation I posted?
This was asked back on the 1st page, in reference to the quote that God foreordains but does not coerce.
I'm going to go back to the example of the crucifixion, and Pilate.
God foreordained that Christ should die and that Pilate would not let him go. The way I see it, and I could be totally wrong here because let's be honest - the relationship between man's free will and the sovereignty of God is something I think is far beyond our understanding. Anyway, I think Sproul's point that Pilate let Christ die because he was weak and gave into the crowd is pretty accurate. It was Pilate himself who gave in, and God didn't reach down and pull any puppet strings.
However, God foreordained what would happen and he is sovereign and the creator of all. It was He who made Pilate who he was, so the fact that Pilate didn't let Christ go could have never come as a surprise to God. God wasn't chewing on his fingernails saying "Gee, I hope Pilate doesn't choose to let Christ go and crucify Barrabbas instead, it would ruin all my plans."
Pilate did what he did because he was the type of person he was, and he made the choices God knew he would make. Yet there were still his choices.
It's a distinction, albeit a very fine one. I know it still goes back to the question, "well if Pilate made the decision because of how God created him, then how is that different from God pulling the strings and making the decision for him?" To that I can only turn to what is in scripture, where Paul says does the potter not have the right to fashion vessels for his own use? We don't really have a say in how we're created. Yet, I do think we're created with a will. How we excercise that will, the choices we make, don't come as a surprise to God though. He knows what we'll do, what we'll choose because he knows us intimately. He numbers the hairs on our head while we're in the womb, how can He not know what types of choices we'll make? And knowing that, what He foreordains will come to pass.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
MattB, to specifically answer your question about the quotation from Ostler, let me comment on this part of the quote.
quote:So even though God doesn't know what free persons will do, there is a very large range of phenomena that can be predicted with great accuracy. What God predicts are usually elements of his plan that he will insure comes about.
I disagree. I don't think God has to predict. God's knowledge is perfect so there is unknown element as there is in a prediction.
God does know exactly what choices free people will make, that's part of his omniscience. As I said, he knows us perfectly, inside and out. There is no prediction no guesswork necessary. He knew exactly what Pilate would do long before Pilate did it, he knew what Pilate would do from the foundation of the world. There is no need for prediction if knowledge of the future is perfect.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Anyway, I think Sproul's point that Pilate let Christ die because he was weak and gave into the crowd is pretty accurate.
I don’t. (Although it really doesn’t disagree with the substance of your post about foreknowledge.) I think we have plenty of historical evidence that Pilate was anything but weak. He was a brutal, oppressive governor, who crucified LOTS of people. He didn’t need to be coerced into it – he did it at the drop of a hat.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Look at it like this, perhaps... God looked at Pilate, Judas, and Mary and said "hmmm here's someone who will convict a man he believes to be innocent to appease a mob, a man who will betray his friends for money, and a woman who will trust me enough to receive a child directly from me. How can I place them to make my plan happen?"
Not that I think any of their characters are actually that simple... merely for illustration.
Also... I have been thinking about another story that has deep spiritual meaning for me: "Unaccompanied Sonata." I didn't understand the LDS view of the fall, but I think this story comes very close to letting me feel it. Christian breaks the law and suffers horrible punishment... and the good he would have brought is lost for everyone... yet somehow, the world is better... well, not better, but right... in spite of or even because of it.
For a believer, this story is an awesomely beautiful example of God bringing good out of bad things... and I still can't read or listen to that story without weeping openly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I love that. Dag and folks, what are your beliefs about personal revelation like she's referring to in this passage?
One of the things lost in the Fall was a clear connection with God's voice. I think it relates to free will - few people are so constituted as to be able to converse that directly with God and not be overwhelmed.
Card touched on this with Shedemai in Earthborn - the Keeper could use her directly because Shedemai had already decided she wanted to be used. So there was no danger to her free will to give her the direct command to appear to Akma.
To Lewis, I think the Lady's ability to hear God is the same we would have if not for the Fall. I don't think he goes into the reason for it's loss a lot, but I think the overwhelming of our free will is part of it. It's another aspect of the Incarnation, that God gave us a way to interact with him that doesn't threaten our free will, even in our fallen state.
quote:where Paul says does the potter not have the right to fashion vessels for his own use?
This brings up another divide:
Catholics and most Protestants (maybe all, certainly the "mainstrean") believe that the soul is created at a specific moment, either by God from nothing (Catholic and some Protestants) or from parts of the parents' souls (some Protestants). Either way, God has complete control over what is created.
My understanding is that Mormon's don't believe God made the spirit each person has. How much of Pilate's makeup is that spirit, and how much is determined by God's choice and/or natural processes?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Jim--I agree, Unaccompanied Sonata is intense.
My toroid is in fact an approximation of the shape of every particle and wave in existence. Everything can be thought of as both a particle and a wave.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My understanding is that Mormon's don't believe God made the spirit each person has.
We do believe that God created our spirits, but that he didn't create it out of nothing -- that our "intelligence" already existed beforehand.
What exactly that means, I'm not entirely sure.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Does Mormon doctrine make a positive statement about what aspects of Pilate's mental makeup came from God and which from the pre-existing intelligence?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
There aren't all that many 'positive doctrinal statements' about the specific makeup of Spirits/Intelligences. ("Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.").
We do know and are taught that our Spirits are literal Offspring of God with primeval origins in unorganized Intelligences. So in many ways, Body is to Spirit as Spirit is to Intelligence.
My understanding is that while Intelligence is the pure Self, the Spirit is refined Intelligence, and the embodied Spirit is even more refined, and able to "process" more, with the added hinderance of having to overcome physical cravings that are not necessarily in line with the will of God.
In other words, each layer (from 'spirit' to 'body') gives us more ability to choose to react to given situations. We are taught that God gave us our agency - without Spirit bodies and Physical Bodies, our ability to choose how to direct our lives was non-existant.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Thanks, Belle, for the clarification.
quote:so the fact that Pilate didn't let Christ go could have never come as a surprise to God. God wasn't chewing on his fingernails saying "Gee, I hope Pilate doesn't choose to let Christ go and crucify Barrabbas instead it would ruin all my plans."
I actually agree with this - I think God chose the time and place to send Christ because it was that time and place that would end with what had to happen. However - and this is, I think, where we disagree - I think God knew that because of his exalted knowledge of every facet of the world at that time; he knew what would end up happening because of his predictive ability - not because he knew the future. And, because of that, I don't think every jot and tittle of what happened was known in advance. The final outcome, that which was necessary for God's work, however, was.
quote:Pilate did what he did because he was the type of person he was, and he made the choices God knew he would make. Yet there were still his choices.
I, actually, can agree with all of this. I just have a different reason why God knew what choices Pilate would make.
It _is_ a fine distinction, isn't it?
quote:We are taught that God gave us our agency - without Spirit bodies and Physical Bodies, our ability to choose how to direct our lives was non-existant.
I would tweak this a little. I believe that agency is fundamental to our intelligences; that is, it is part of that which makes us sentient beings, and is not created by God. God's organization of our selves, however, gave us the ability to act upon that agency.
Card's philotes in Xenocide are a pretty fair fictional representation of this doctrine.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
To go back a bit, Dag said:
quote:To Lewis, I think the Lady's ability to hear God is the same we would have if not for the Fall. I don't think he goes into the reason for it's loss a lot, but I think the overwhelming of our free will is part of it. It's another aspect of the Incarnation, that God gave us a way to interact with him that doesn't threaten our free will, even in our fallen state.
That's interesting and it's cool to see where the differences lie. (I'm learning so much in this thread!) The reason that quote resonated so much with me is that I believe that God can and does communicate with us that clearly. Granted, Mormons believe that this communication does not come completely until we are baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Once we are blessed with this gift after baptism, we have a way to communicate with God so that we can know His will for us...not that His will can overwhelm ours (our agency is still cmopletely intact), but so that we might know His will and still make the choice. We believe that at baptism, we are making a covenant with God (a two way promise). We promise to do our best to stay on the path, and He in turn promises that the Holy Spirit can be with us as long as we are living worthily.
I must say that I have had experiences similar to the one that the Lady describes in that quote when she talks about a "whisper saying yes" to confirm that what I'm hearing is truth
KJV John 14:26 says:
quote:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
And in the Book of Mormon it says:
quote:5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
(All of the above is simply to better explain my beliefs on the subject, not to debate or argue against what anyone else believes.)
So I wonder what Lewis thinks about that. Are his beliefs similar to Dag's? (I haven't read all of Lewis' non fiction, so I'm coming up short here.)
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
As far as I know, Lewis didn't address personal revelation at all, but would likely have been closer to Dag's view that this ability to communicate directly has been heavily damaged by the fall... I would not say "lost" because he was definitely a major proponent of importance of listening during prayer, saying things like:
quote:I don't pray to change Him [God], I pray to change me
and comparing prayer to being an underground resistance fighter, listening to the radio for instructions from headquarters.
On the other hand, in the series in question, Earth is called "Thulcandra", which means, "the silent planet"-- a direct reference to the idea of being cut off from the heavens. The non fallen creatures all speak directly and plainly with angels through out the series, whereas only a few humans perceive them at all, and only with great difficulty... still Ransom (I often wonder if he is patterned after Tolkien... after all, how many philologists would view Lewis as a best friend, someone to share *this* type of story with?) manages to speak to them and learn to commune with them. I take this to mean Lewis felt it was something we lost in the fall and only get back through hard work and something like re-attunement.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So, how is this obedience fantasy any different from BDSM, where the masochist takes joy in being ordered to do things?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, the former isn't sexual.
The latter might be a faint echo or perversion of the true pleasure in obeying God that was lost in the fall.
I know you'll scoff at that, but I offer it up for those who actually care to participate in this thread.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
No one can deny, there is pleasure in obedience. There is also pleasure in rebellion. If God really is as good and perfect as we believe, than obeying Him is the best of options--the one most likely to lead to goodness, happiness, and fulfillment.
But if you don't believe He even exists, why do you care?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Bev, I suggest you take a look at the link in my 'Speaking of gay marriage' thread. It'll explain everything you want to know about why I care what religious people think.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
KoM, the grownups are having a literary discussion here. Run along and play elsewhere.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Looks like a raligious discussion to me. If you don't like the atheist viewpoint, you're welcome to go somewhere else.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's a discussion about a particular work of fiction.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You may take my comments as pertaining to Lewis's views on obedience, if you prefer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I take the fact that you haven't bothered to acknowledge my substantive response to your post as further evidence of your lack of desire to actually participate in the literary discussion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I responded to bev, you went into ad homs. But to answer your suggestion, how do you know the pleasure you take in obedience to your god is not sexual? Even from the theistic-evolution point of view, after all, sex is pretty deeply wired (by your god, if you like) into the human animal. Why shouldn't it use that deep drive to enforce or reward obedience to itself? And from the atheist viewpoint, of course, well, the whole 'nailed to the cross' thing is just classic. Not to mention 'The Passion of the Christ.'
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Let's say it *is* sexual... after all, Paul pretty explicitly states that the church is Christ's bride.
So what's your point, KoM? There's a desire to obey in each of us... it becomes so strong in some people that it dominates (if you'll pardon the expression) their sex lives... that an aspect of a divinely instituted order might become a seperate object of worship in its own right is actually right in line with one of the views taken in the work in question-- that ancient polytheistic systems have merely mistaken the higher servants for the real Master.
Also, your line of thought about the passion reminds me of a song I wrote as something of an answer to NIN's "Closer" and would like to hear your (and other's) thoughts on it...
Penetration Jim Scott
Is it worth the pain I give you? Is it worth the time I steal? Is it worth the lessons that we learn The only way - the hard way?
Can you put up with my drama? Can you put up with my lies? Can you put up with the hurt I bring Everyday, the hard way?
I’ll never understand Why you still reach out your hand When I offer you the blade and not the hilt.
You take me further up and farther in. I feel your flesh part as I drive into your heart. You take me further up and farther in. And I hear you softly say that it must be the harder way
Tell me Love is hopeful. Tell me Love will always trust. Tell me Love endures everything And then you pay, the hard way.
You say, “put your hand inside me.” You say, “touch me where it hurts.” You say, “taste and see the pleasures I display for you the hard way.”
The desire in your eyes Tells me Love can’t be denied As you offer up your body to my sin.
You say, “real love is penetration.” You say, “real love begins with pain.” You say, “real love can only come from me. I am The Way – the hard way.”
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There's a desire to obey in each of us...
Speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure I don't have any such desire.
Seriously. None.
That isn't to say I don't want to fit in, and/or don't want to be liked. But I want to lead. A desire for obedience is not a component of my personality.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Not trying to get overly personal, but when Christy asks you for a favor and you do it, well, and it pleases her, that does nothing for you?
That's what I'm talking about here... not a desire to be a slave. Does that make more sense?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Not trying to get overly personal, but when Christy asks you for a favor and you do it, well, and it pleases her, that does nothing for you?
That's not obedience. That's friendship.
If Christy told me to do something, and if I didn't do it I would be punished, I would not be happy to do it for her.
Most people believe that their relationship with God is of the second type.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
What sort of relationship did you have with your parents? Did you always resent following their rules? I know that I resented it more often than not, especially in my teens. But a lot of the rules made sense, and I knew that they were for my own good. I understood the purpose of punishment. (And my parents were very gentle.)
Do you resent following the laws of the country? Do you obey them willingly because you believe them to be good?
Obedience is about when there is an authority over you. If that authority is truly good and has your best interest at heart as well as the best interest of others, why would you not want to follow? Out of pure desire to rebel? (Though certainly I understand that feeling *well*.)
I propose that while the religious do pleasure in following God, they still retain their pleasure in rebelling as well. And their willingness to obey God stems from trust in the goodness and love of God. Without that trust, they would not obey. They try to work against the desire to rebel because they believe it will lead to unhappiness for themselves and others.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That's not obedience. That's friendship.
If Christy told me to do something, and if I didn't do it I would be punished, I would not be happy to do it for her.
Most people believe that their relationship with God is of the second type.
I agree with you, most people do. I hope that most people are wrong on that particular count.
It's a toughy, no doubt...I'm trying to sort through this on the fly here...
Hmmm... what if she's working on something-- a surprise for you, say-- and she orders you to stay out of the kitchen... you do and you receive the pleasure of a surprise cake. If you don't, you incur her (probably mild) wrath and lose the pleasure of the surprise.
This is another way that you could gain pleasure by obedience, even under threat, and lose it by disobedience.
I realize that this particular pleasure is not inherent in obedience, but I'm not generally able to formulate and clearly state complex theological ideas off the cuff
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[edit to add: 'this statement applies to me personally' so that people don't think I'm squashing inquiry into truth.]![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm tempted to delete it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)