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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We certainly wouldn't want to detain you with pointless discussion. I promise we won't feel insulted if you don't participate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe we Mormons are just trying to overcompensate for all the flack Eve's been getting throughout history. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, how is this obedience fantasy any different from BDSM, where the masochist takes joy in being ordered to do things?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like a raligious discussion to me. If you don't like the atheist viewpoint, you're welcome to go somewhere else.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.'
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.”
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The thought that Christ endured all that God is asking us to endure is a great source of comfort.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
To be honest, there is still too much of the rebel in me.
