Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Speaking of which, this new thread doesn't get you off the hook for answering all my points in the last one.

Nor does it let you off the hook from responding to my responses in post 986 . I already responded to about half your post. I'll take the rest now.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Beings that have no independent control are not an audience. Would you consider Harry, Ron and Hermione part of Rowling's "audience"?

They certainly would be audience, with a very deep internal look at her book, if they were alive. And life vs. non-life is the major failing of the book analogy.

And you don't have to have independent control to be an audience. I might grab you by the wrists and physically force you to watch a movie, and that doesn't stop you being an audience member, even if you are an unwilling one. But God doesn't grab anyone by the wrists and force them to watch the movie- people do what they want. In that way, this comparison falls short.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

God, in your explanation, isn't "developing" anything at all. He creates good personalities and evil personalities and watches them do exactly what he expects them to do. There is no "developing".

As they do what he expects them to do, they develop. That process is developing. Just because God planned how it would develop doesn't mean it doesn't develop . Are you saying that for anything to develop, it has to be free of anyone's control? That's completely contrary to what we observe in life.

Film develops while under control. Buildings develop while under human control. We plan it out beforehand, put our resources together and build it, but it develops. Of course humans can't develop humans, although they certainly can influence them a lot, but God is far above us, and his developing us doesn't mean we don't develop. The result of God's planning develops in fulfillment of that plan. There is no contradiction between God's planning and acting and development.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Of course you're right that in the final analysis, God writes it all. However, humans still get to act freely according to their personalities in the circumstances they're in, and can change their circumstances through their wills, whatever their will may happen to be, and it will also be God's. One thing that no character should be able to complain of to the author in a good book is, "I wanted to do this one thing, but you intervened, messed with my character and prevented me doing what I would naturally do." Good authors create characters who behave in exactly the ways that are natural for them to behave in. Poor writers tamper with the personalities of their characters in unrealistic ways.


The only reason you can talk about what is "natural" and "unnatural" or "realistic" and "unrealistic" is because the author is not also writing your story. Whatever Rowling chooses to write about Harry, Ron and Hermione is perfectly "natural" from their point of view because Rowling created them.

It may or may not be natural from your point of view only because Rowling did not create, and thus does not control, your personality.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, here.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Characters do have some control over what happens around them and over what choices they make, but God has complete control. Their control and God's control don't contradict one another- that's my point.


They do contradict one another. If someone has complete control, by definition of the word complete, no one else has any control. The best you can give them is the perception of control if they do not completely see or understand the being that has complete control.

The concept is so basic, I feel silly even having to explain it.

I have already responded to this many times.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
I define free will differently than you do, because I think the definition you are arguing for (without believing in it), and which I have commonly heard from other people, makes no sense.


What you are doing is calling a lack of free will, "free will". I could argue to the end of my days that black is really white, but no one is going to believe me.

Let me ask you a question: do you think god has free will in the common definition of the term (i.e. he can do whatever he wants with no outside control)?

Like us, he is bound to fulfill his personality, to be himself, just as we are.

I may respond to the rest later. I have to go now.