Thanks for sharing. This is certainly a creative theogony and theodicy.
I am supportive of some neoplatonic considerations, such as presented by Aquinas in De Ente. But I would have more concerns re. the obvious gnosticism you outlined. I might have to read the actual article first, though, before jumping to conclusions.
In any case, I am curious to read/hear more about your own perspective and assessment!
I'm with you. And yes, I'm planning on sharing my own reservations soon, either here or on the podcast. You've already hinted at some. For example, I don't think you need to go all the way with Johnston's idea of a secondary creation vs (as is traditionally held) that creation is *mediated* through archons. Few other things here and there, but none that -- so far as I can tell -- would require a wholesale rejection of Johnston's strategy.
I maintain the issue of “evil” is a red herring. Essentially it is a non-issue.
If one starts from the proposition that God created creatures with a will, then the problem of evil falls apart. (Is there a difference between a will and free will?)
So start with the premise that God wants creatures with free will. What is necessary? For the choices to be free, there must be doubt. I do not doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow but I have some doubt that this weekend will be sunny despite the rosy forecast. Or that I will get that new promotion next Spring despite being very qualified. The latter will keep me doing my best at my current job.
It is all downhill from just these simple observations. So there must be unwanted things, such as suffering, necessary to create that doubt.
Otherwise, belief in God and eternal reward would be sure and we would not have free will. God would have created automatons and a meaningless existence where choices would not have any meaning.
Thanks for sharing. This is certainly a creative theogony and theodicy.
I am supportive of some neoplatonic considerations, such as presented by Aquinas in De Ente. But I would have more concerns re. the obvious gnosticism you outlined. I might have to read the actual article first, though, before jumping to conclusions.
In any case, I am curious to read/hear more about your own perspective and assessment!
I'm with you. And yes, I'm planning on sharing my own reservations soon, either here or on the podcast. You've already hinted at some. For example, I don't think you need to go all the way with Johnston's idea of a secondary creation vs (as is traditionally held) that creation is *mediated* through archons. Few other things here and there, but none that -- so far as I can tell -- would require a wholesale rejection of Johnston's strategy.
I maintain the issue of “evil” is a red herring. Essentially it is a non-issue.
If one starts from the proposition that God created creatures with a will, then the problem of evil falls apart. (Is there a difference between a will and free will?)
So start with the premise that God wants creatures with free will. What is necessary? For the choices to be free, there must be doubt. I do not doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow but I have some doubt that this weekend will be sunny despite the rosy forecast. Or that I will get that new promotion next Spring despite being very qualified. The latter will keep me doing my best at my current job.
It is all downhill from just these simple observations. So there must be unwanted things, such as suffering, necessary to create that doubt.
Otherwise, belief in God and eternal reward would be sure and we would not have free will. God would have created automatons and a meaningless existence where choices would not have any meaning.