Comments on: Benevolent Theodicy: the Logical Necessity of Eternal Progression http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/06/benevolent-theodicy-the-logical-necessity-of-eternal-progression/ Truth will prevail Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:26:21 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Kaimi http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/06/benevolent-theodicy-the-logical-necessity-of-eternal-progression/#comment-3543 Kaimi Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=913#comment-3543 Matt, It's cute, and punchy. I don't know if I can buy it, though. My main concern is, how do you prevent this logic from leading to the Nehorian heresy? (See also <a>"2 Ne 28)</a>. Matt,

It’s cute, and punchy. I don’t know if I can buy it, though. My main concern is, how do you prevent this logic from leading to the Nehorian heresy? (See also “2 Ne 28).

]]> By: Matt Evans http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/06/benevolent-theodicy-the-logical-necessity-of-eternal-progression/#comment-3544 Matt Evans Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=913#comment-3544 Hi Kaimi, My argument is built within the traditional Christian theology, which holds a more robust view of God's omnipotence. Because Mormons believe that God obeys eternal laws, we believe his power to only be omnipotent within the constraints of those laws. For example, he cannot save sinners without Christ's atonement. The atonement was necessary precisely because our salvation was not possible, even to God, without it. And because of eternal laws we do not comprehend, even with the atonement God is unable to save those who knowingly refuse Christ's sacrifice. I should also add that I haven't presented the Benevolent Theodicy to any deep Christian thinkers, just to those who 'preach' at the Hill Cumorah Pageant. They really didn't like this dilemma. Hi Kaimi,

My argument is built within the traditional Christian theology, which holds a more robust view of God’s omnipotence.

Because Mormons believe that God obeys eternal laws, we believe his power to only be omnipotent within the constraints of those laws. For example, he cannot save sinners without Christ’s atonement. The atonement was necessary precisely because our salvation was not possible, even to God, without it. And because of eternal laws we do not comprehend, even with the atonement God is unable to save those who knowingly refuse Christ’s sacrifice.

I should also add that I haven’t presented the Benevolent Theodicy to any deep Christian thinkers, just to those who ‘preach’ at the Hill Cumorah Pageant. They really didn’t like this dilemma.

]]> By: danithew http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/06/benevolent-theodicy-the-logical-necessity-of-eternal-progression/#comment-3545 danithew Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=913#comment-3545 I'm not sure about the omnibenevolent argument, simply because many would say that God is unique and has a unique station and that no one will ever be able to be like Him. From that kind of logic, it simply wouldn't be proper for (former) mortals to attain that kind of stature. As I read this though, a certain Biblical verse comes to mind, that has a pretty powerful message about the station the valiant righteous will attain: Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. It would be interesting to read non-Mormon Christian commentaries on this verse to see what they say about its meaning. I’m not sure about the omnibenevolent argument, simply because many would say that God is unique and has a unique station and that no one will ever be able to be like Him. From that kind of logic, it simply wouldn’t be proper for (former) mortals to attain that kind of stature. As I read this though, a certain Biblical verse comes to mind, that has a pretty powerful message about the station the valiant righteous will attain:

Revelation 3:21
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

It would be interesting to read non-Mormon Christian commentaries on this verse to see what they say about its meaning.

]]> By: Kaimi http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/06/benevolent-theodicy-the-logical-necessity-of-eternal-progression/#comment-3546 Kaimi Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=913#comment-3546 By the way, I used a similar argument to (more or less) good effect on my mission, when critics complained that there could be no new scripture. Me: Are you saying that God _can't_ give us new scripture? Them: Umm Me: God is all powerful, he can create entire worlds, he can create us, and if he wants to, he can create new scripture. And who are we to tell God he needs to "shut up"? It's a pretty effective argument. It is hard to admit the existence of an omnipotent God, and deny that the Book of Mormon could ever exist. Of course, that just moves us from "could never exist" to "yes, it could exist, but it doesn't." Still, that's a step forward. By the way, I used a similar argument to (more or less) good effect on my mission, when critics complained that there could be no new scripture.

Me: Are you saying that God _can’t_ give us new scripture?
Them: Umm
Me: God is all powerful, he can create entire worlds, he can create us, and if he wants to, he can create new scripture. And who are we to tell God he needs to “shut up”?

It’s a pretty effective argument. It is hard to admit the existence of an omnipotent God, and deny that the Book of Mormon could ever exist.

Of course, that just moves us from “could never exist” to “yes, it could exist, but it doesn’t.” Still, that’s a step forward.

]]> By: Mark Butler http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/06/benevolent-theodicy-the-logical-necessity-of-eternal-progression/#comment-3547 Mark Butler Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=913#comment-3547 I would add to axiom two as follows: He can make us as he is [if [and only if] we let him]. I would add to axiom two as follows:

He can make us as he is [if [and only if] we let him].

]]> By: Taylor http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/06/benevolent-theodicy-the-logical-necessity-of-eternal-progression/#comment-3548 Taylor Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=913#comment-3548 Matt, I'm am not sure this works. You can't have both omnibenevolence and omnipotence because of the problem of evil. This argument creates far more problems than you hope to solve. Also, I am not sure why God's benevolence necessitates that we become like him. Finally, as Mark rightly notes, we don't really beleive God is omnipotent because we beleive that we are free agents (D&C 93). Matt, I’m am not sure this works. You can’t have both omnibenevolence and omnipotence because of the problem of evil. This argument creates far more problems than you hope to solve. Also, I am not sure why God’s benevolence necessitates that we become like him. Finally, as Mark rightly notes, we don’t really beleive God is omnipotent because we beleive that we are free agents (D&C 93).

]]> By: lyle http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/06/benevolent-theodicy-the-logical-necessity-of-eternal-progression/#comment-3549 lyle Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=913#comment-3549 taylor: 1. why does the problem of evil get in the way. Seems unfair for you to can Matt's argument both ways; i.e. "doesn't work cuz of theodicy" _AND_ "doesn't work cuz of agency." 2. re: becoming more like God. a. maybe Matt is doing like kaimi did; creating a "possible" argument. b. your objection re: not necessarily do we become like God only follows if you reject the literal relationship between Parent/Child. taylor:
1. why does the problem of evil get in the way. Seems unfair for you to can Matt’s argument both ways; i.e. “doesn’t work cuz of theodicy” _AND_ “doesn’t work cuz of agency.”

2. re: becoming more like God.
a. maybe Matt is doing like kaimi did; creating a “possible” argument.
b. your objection re: not necessarily do we become like God only follows if you reject the literal relationship between Parent/Child.

]]> By: clarkgoble http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/06/benevolent-theodicy-the-logical-necessity-of-eternal-progression/#comment-3550 clarkgoble Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=913#comment-3550 It's an interesting take. However I wonder if it works in the ontological framework in which the Trinity is conceived? For instance God can take man's nature through Christ, but can man truly take God's nature in a logically consistent fashion? The reason for the difficulty is the doctrine of <i>creation ex nihlo</i>. It seems God is a necessary being while we are created beings. How can you make something created become uncreated and be logically consistent? I don't think you can, except in a purely metaphorical sense. I suspect that divide is the big reason they find us so blashphemous. It is that we deny what is a fairly significant doctrine: <i>creation ex nihlo</i> Of course I admit I also find this very approach to philosophy and theology deeply problematic. (All this speak of necessary beings, contingent beings, essential nature and accidental natures) I've been enjoying reading a recent philosophy of religion blog. (I don't remember the link - it's on my blog) But I find myself doubting the whole approach. If I were to look for the fundamental problem, it would almost certainly be the conception of creation we find in most Christian theology since the time the philosophers got coverted... (<i>grin</i>) Indeed, when you get right down to it, the problem we have with the notion of the Trinity really hinges on that act of creation and the fundamental <i>ontological</i> divide between creature and creator. It’s an interesting take. However I wonder if it works in the ontological framework in which the Trinity is conceived? For instance God can take man’s nature through Christ, but can man truly take God’s nature in a logically consistent fashion? The reason for the difficulty is the doctrine of creation ex nihlo. It seems God is a necessary being while we are created beings. How can you make something created become uncreated and be logically consistent? I don’t think you can, except in a purely metaphorical sense.

I suspect that divide is the big reason they find us so blashphemous. It is that we deny what is a fairly significant doctrine: creation ex nihlo Of course I admit I also find this very approach to philosophy and theology deeply problematic. (All this speak of necessary beings, contingent beings, essential nature and accidental natures) I’ve been enjoying reading a recent philosophy of religion blog. (I don’t remember the link – it’s on my blog) But I find myself doubting the whole approach.

If I were to look for the fundamental problem, it would almost certainly be the conception of creation we find in most Christian theology since the time the philosophers got coverted… (grin) Indeed, when you get right down to it, the problem we have with the notion of the Trinity really hinges on that act of creation and the fundamental ontological divide between
creature and creator.

]]> By: chris goble http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/06/benevolent-theodicy-the-logical-necessity-of-eternal-progression/#comment-3551 chris goble Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=913#comment-3551 One of the problems I see people having with our eternal progression and the perfection of God is that eventually both God and us will be on the same level. I think this discounts the fact that God's making us perfect may also change who he is. In this sense, nothing is ever finished. Everything is changing. We can never truly be like God, because the minute he goes to make us like him, he changes. Perhaps it is similar to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The more precise you know momentum, the more fuzzy measures of the position become. One of the problems I see people having with our eternal progression and the perfection of God is that eventually both God and us will be on the same level. I think this discounts the fact that God’s making us perfect may also change who he is. In this sense, nothing is ever finished. Everything is changing. We can never truly be like God, because the minute he goes to make us like him, he changes.

Perhaps it is similar to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. The more precise you know momentum, the more fuzzy measures of the position become.

]]> By: Geoff B http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/06/benevolent-theodicy-the-logical-necessity-of-eternal-progression/#comment-3552 Geoff B Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=913#comment-3552 Frankly I have never been able to understand the mainsteam "Christian" objection to the LDS doctrine that men can eventually perfect ourselves to become like God. Doesn't Jesus ask us to do that in the Sermon on the Mount? Doesn't CS Lewis say that men are machines made by a specific maker whose goal is to turn those machines into versions of Himself? C.S. Lewis's entire argument is that men are made by their maker to only be happy pursuing perfection and becoming more like God. And Lewis' argument comes from a careful reading of the Bible and is widely accepted by most Christians. Frankly I have never been able to understand the mainsteam “Christian” objection to the LDS doctrine that men can eventually perfect ourselves to become like God. Doesn’t Jesus ask us to do that in the Sermon on the Mount? Doesn’t CS Lewis say that men are machines made by a specific maker whose goal is to turn those machines into versions of Himself? C.S. Lewis’s entire argument is that men are made by their maker to only be happy pursuing perfection and becoming more like God. And Lewis’ argument comes from a careful reading of the Bible and is widely accepted by most Christians.

]]>