Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!laura
From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: YAOFW (Yet another Omni/Free Will)
Message-ID: <3587@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Mar-84 05:53:38 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3587
Posted: Sat Mar  3 05:53:38 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Mar-84 05:53:38 EST
References: <858@ssc-vax.UUCP>, <3586@utzoo.UUCP>, <6852@unc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 83

Byron,

I think that we get to the same conclusions, but we get there by
different paths. If this is not the case then I am still
misunderstanding you.

You say:

	What I was trying to get away from is the notion of G-d's
	responsibility in the matter of human actions.  This does not,
	however, imply that humans are necessarily responsible (in the
	ultimate sense) for their actions.

However, the whole notion of "responsibility" will require
re-examination if God is deemed to be omniscient. We have already
concluded that in that case, human beings are not responsible for their
actions. Thus "responsibility" is either God's or it is itself a
meaningless phrase like "round square".

To drive this one closer to home -- if God is omniscient, could Jesus
sin? It is pretty well agreed that He didn't -- but a good question is
"Could He?". If He could, then there must be some moment in time where
He could have behaved differently than he did. In that case, could God
the Father have predicted His action? Suppose Jesus had decided not to
go through with the crucifying, for instance. If Christianity is
correct, then this has serious implications for Mankind. What happened
in the Garden of Gethsemene anyway? Could Jesus have let the cup pass
from Him? If so, was God the Father upstairs sweating it out because he
knew one decision would have had terrible consequences for His Son and
the rest would have terrible consequences for Mankind?

This is sort of the way that they picture it in most of the Easter
enactments at the various Christian Churches I have attended. On the
other hand, this does not seem to jibe well with the God the
All-Knowing Father bit. For a third hand, remember that Jesus is
supposed to be God. Was He omniscient as he walked through life?
Somehow it kind of detracts from the story line when you picture Jesus
saying "okay, in 10 minutes it is time for the Sermon on the Mount, and
this is real important and I remember what I will have said...later I
am going to curse the fig tree --- boy they are going to puzzle over
that for centuries ..." It also makes Jesus rather less (though as well
more) than human, for indeed it is a very basic that all human beings
sin. If Jesus couldn't Sin and human beings can, then presumably Jesus
never had to feel sorrow for his sins, or shame or guilt as all human
beings I know have felt. I think that in this case he seems to have
missed out on important experiences.

Of course, if he couldn't because he had no free will and neither do
any of us, then all of our guilt and shame seem rather pointless, so it
is impossible to say that they are important in any way -- for all
seems rather meaningless.


	In the matter of G-d vs. human perception of time, I imagine
	that G-d sees time much like human's see physical dimensions,
	only with unlimited vision and resolution.  (I agree with Dave
	Norris [*gasp*] that 'where' G-d was 'in/on' that dimension
	when it created the dimension itself is an ill-formed
	question.)  Man, standing in the dimension sees muddily toward
	the past, and almost not at all toward the future and is, in
	fact, only sort of philosophically aware that the dimension
	exists at all.

This is the bit that I don't agree with you about. The future is every
bit as understood as a dimension in human perception as the past. The
distinction is "what is the present"? What makes the present the
present?  Why do I feel *this* as now rather than 10 minutes ago or ten
minutes from now? This is a very serious question. If your vision of
God's perception is correct, then there seems no reason for us to have
a concept of now -- moreoever, there seems no reason why I should share
my perception of *now* with the others that I am with.

Given problems of continuity and the indivisibility of a line, the
question "what is now"? or "when is now"? is not easy.

However, I will agree with you -- it spawns fascinationg problems.



-- 

Laura Creighton (NOTE NEW ADDRESS)
utzoo!laura