This is just the typical theodicy which in a rather see through manner evades the problem by circularity and sentimentality. As if "love" or "beauty" would justify something which is in contradiction to love. In other words, if there is anything good about "love", this theodicy doesn't work at all, and if one assumes it works, then only because this kind of "love" has none of the benign properties that makes the word attractive to the listener. Yeah, we have all read our Frithjof Schuon describing the same thing with the bad and evil as privation, of the diluted Perfectly Good which wants to be known and giving. *But there IS at origin no need to do so from the side of the creatures that do not exist at that unmanifest origin !* _"But you can't have love and beauty then !"_ *There **_is_** no one there to need or lack love and beauty !* By that reasoning it would be wise to take pliers and crunch and rip out my teeth because otherwise I wouldn't experience how good it feels when the pain subsides. Some day. So if this narrative would be how things are, we are stuck with an infinite monster that cannot help creating a world of horrors within himself _(his tzimtzum I guess)_ just so He isn't so alone. And by virtue of His infinity, I guess this "allowing" for horrors will go on forever and ever and ever. *Thanks, but no thanks !*
I think the question you are asking or the statement you are making is, would love allow that which is not love, for the purpose of choice, or is there more than choice going on here, is there the illusion/delusion/imagination of freewill, when there is in reality none. I think to even reach the stage of faith (the belief in love above all) is not the result of freewill, but is a gift. Rom.11:29,32. Rom.8:20; 9: 18-21. We're a plaything in the tide, mate, we weren't consulted. When all evidence, might not seem, to be there, we hope, and believe in love and eternal life, because temporary life and love do exist. Our minds can't cope with any other. Also for there to be life for us, our death has to be permanently held somewhere, as well as new life given to us.
@@wilfredmancy _"I think the question you are asking or the statement you are making is, would love allow that which is not love"_ No, please read again. And let some time pass until you understand before you reply. I am saying that the "justifications" using terms such as "love" or "gift" make no sense in an original situation in which there is no other. A non-existing other needs nothing and "love" and "gifts" is meaningless vocabulary there. And if you can get those only because you first suffer to the exact degree that you can then experience "love" or "gifts" as compensation, then the sane conclusion should be obvious !
@@TheSoteriologist Yes it is obvious that "love" or "gift" make no sense if there is no other. Also it had never occurred to me that suffering might gain me "love" or "gifts". I have always thought of myself as a physical animal on a physical planet, trying to avoid suffering, both successfully and unsuccessfully. I have usually found that suffering indicated that something was out of order, which is sometimes hard or impossible to reorder causing ongoing suffering. In the midst of this suffering, I seek to avoid being the cause of suffering, in which I have been both successful and unsuccessful. Suffering can be useful, to cause us to look for causes. I once had a billy goat and also a rooster, whose hostile urges and impulses, were so strong that no amount of inflicted pain could change their mind, however, sadly.
thank you. judy from ontario
God CAN do whatever He wants but he does not WANT to do everything he can. He leaves much for us.
Thank you!
People are NOT free in their violence and etc! What do mean by “Freedom” Brad! What a pile of bear xxxx!
This is just the typical theodicy which in a rather see through manner evades the problem by circularity and sentimentality. As if "love" or "beauty" would justify something which is in contradiction to love. In other words, if there is anything good about "love", this theodicy doesn't work at all, and if one assumes it works, then only because this kind of "love" has none of the benign properties that makes the word attractive to the listener. Yeah, we have all read our Frithjof Schuon describing the same thing with the bad and evil as privation, of the diluted Perfectly Good which wants to be known and giving.
*But there IS at origin no need to do so from the side of the creatures that do not exist at that unmanifest origin !*
_"But you can't have love and beauty then !"_
*There **_is_** no one there to need or lack love and beauty !*
By that reasoning it would be wise to take pliers and crunch and rip out my teeth because otherwise I wouldn't experience how good it feels when the pain subsides. Some day.
So if this narrative would be how things are, we are stuck with an infinite monster that cannot help creating a world of horrors within himself _(his tzimtzum I guess)_ just so He isn't so alone. And by virtue of His infinity, I guess this "allowing" for horrors will go on forever and ever and ever.
*Thanks, but no thanks !*
I think the question you are asking or the statement you are making is, would love allow that which is not love, for the purpose of choice, or is there more than choice going on here, is there the illusion/delusion/imagination of freewill, when there is in reality none. I think to even reach the stage of faith (the belief in love above all) is not the result of freewill, but is a gift. Rom.11:29,32. Rom.8:20; 9: 18-21.
We're a plaything in the tide, mate, we weren't consulted. When all evidence, might not seem, to be there, we hope, and believe in love and eternal life, because temporary life and love do exist. Our minds can't cope with any other.
Also for there to be life for us, our death has to be permanently held somewhere, as well as new life given to us.
@@wilfredmancy _"I think the question you are asking or the statement you are making is, would love allow that which is not love"_
No, please read again. And let some time pass until you understand before you reply. I am saying that the "justifications" using terms such as "love" or "gift" make no sense in an original situation in which there is no other. A non-existing other needs nothing and "love" and "gifts" is meaningless vocabulary there. And if you can get those only because you first suffer to the exact degree that you can then experience "love" or "gifts" as compensation, then the sane conclusion should be obvious !
@@TheSoteriologist Yes it is obvious that "love" or "gift" make no sense if there is no other.
Also it had never occurred to me that suffering might gain me "love" or "gifts".
I have always thought of myself as a physical animal on a physical planet, trying to avoid suffering, both successfully and unsuccessfully. I have usually found that suffering indicated that something was out of order, which is sometimes hard or impossible to reorder causing ongoing suffering.
In the midst of this suffering, I seek to avoid being the cause of suffering, in which I have been both successful and unsuccessful.
Suffering can be useful, to cause us to look for causes. I once had a billy goat and also a rooster, whose hostile urges and impulses, were so strong that no amount of inflicted pain could change their mind, however, sadly.
@@wilfredmancy Hence the OP.
God laid down his humanity that we could lay ours down and take up his divinity. That we be the love that's needed.