Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

4thTimeLucky · 05-29-2003, 10:29 AM

Back again. Sorry, work is a bit heavy at the moment.

I notice that (iii), about prayer for the past, goes unanswered, but that’s okay. I asked quite a lot and maybe we can return to it later.

So, yes. You go for option three: Empowerment. In fact that’s what I would go for too, so I’m glad you chose it. I hope you don’t mind if I elaborate a bit on the issue of Empowerment in an aside and then ask some more questions:

----
ASIDE: skip this part if you want

There are three ways in which the Empowerment option could work (why always three?!):
- God limits himself such that he cannot intervene to do S unless C prays for it.
- God sets himself, or by nature has, a binding objective that cannot be achieved unless he only does S if C prays for it.
- God chooses not to do certain things, Ss, unless C prays for them.

Personally I go for option three (again), because the first leaves Him open to charges of abrogating sovereignty and the second leaves Him open to the possibility that his objectives will be thwarted by humans [we may never pray for anything], and Job 42:2 tells us that this cannot happen. Option three gives Him the most flexibility and power. I also think (and correct me if I’m wrong) that option three is close enough to your point (1) Lebell. But anyhow it may not matter which option we choose. It may be enough to say that an omnipotent God can simply decide withhold his power until it asked for, even if that means letting bad things happen when noone prays.
---

So, the big issue:
WHY would God choose to limit his power and make good things be dependent upon the actions of fallible humans?

Two possible reasons:
I) Doing S is a good. But making S prayer dependent, even if this means sometimes not doing S, leads to an even greater good. [This, I believe, is your point (2) Lebell. If I can make the leap that God, being omnibenevolent, desires what is most good.]

II) Doing S is a good. But not making S prayer dependent leads to a harm would outweigh the good of S.

Interestingly Lebell went for option (I), which is again a smart move because option (II) falls down even faster [if anyone cares to know why, then just ask].

So how are we to make sense of (I). Well first it will help to take a break with a nice picture and then we can have go…..

05-29-2003, 10:29 AM	#8 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Back again. Sorry, work is a bit heavy at the moment. I notice that (iii), about prayer for the past, goes unanswered, but that’s okay. I asked quite a lot and maybe we can return to it later. So, yes. You go for option three: Empowerment. In fact that’s what I would go for too, so I’m glad you chose it. I hope you don’t mind if I elaborate a bit on the issue of Empowerment in an aside and then ask some more questions: ---- ASIDE: skip this part if you want There are three ways in which the Empowerment option could work (why always three?!): - God limits himself such that he cannot intervene to do S unless C prays for it. - God sets himself, or by nature has, a binding objective that cannot be achieved unless he only does S if C prays for it. - God chooses not to do certain things, Ss, unless C prays for them. Personally I go for option three (again), because the first leaves Him open to charges of abrogating sovereignty and the second leaves Him open to the possibility that his objectives will be thwarted by humans [we may never pray for anything], and Job 42:2 tells us that this cannot happen. Option three gives Him the most flexibility and power. I also think (and correct me if I’m wrong) that option three is close enough to your point (1) Lebell. But anyhow it may not matter which option we choose. It may be enough to say that an omnipotent God can simply decide withhold his power until it asked for, even if that means letting bad things happen when noone prays. --- So, the big issue: WHY would God choose to limit his power and make good things be dependent upon the actions of fallible humans? Two possible reasons: I) Doing S is a good. But making S prayer dependent, even if this means sometimes not doing S, leads to an even greater good. [This, I believe, is your point (2) Lebell. If I can make the leap that God, being omnibenevolent, desires what is most good.] II) Doing S is a good. But not making S prayer dependent leads to a harm would outweigh the good of S. Interestingly Lebell went for option (I), which is again a smart move because option (II) falls down even faster [if anyone cares to know why, then just ask]. So how are we to make sense of (I). Well first it will help to take a break with a nice picture and then we can have go….. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 05-29-2003 at 10:35 AM..