Does Man Have Free Will?

[Bookworm4Him]

Big topic here that I would love to discuss, but the other one was closed, so let's discuss this without ad hominem, or going off the subject. If you don't, we will get kicked off. So, Does Man Have Free Will?

My belief- yes. Proof? First, I need an opponent. :D

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

No. Spinoza's philosophy abolished Descartes' idea of the dualism between the soul and matter by logically showing that the soul is a direct function of that which affects it; Descartes' view of the soul being separate and free from physical constraints is widely held by Christians today. As he abolished this dualism, the paradoxes that went along with it were abolished as well.

He also showed that two substances cannot exist together, claiming that there is only one substance that can exist; Einstein showed this mathematically about 300 years later, and displayed it during world war two with an atomic bomb.

Spinoza's Proof:
1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence.

2. No two substances can share the same nature or attribute.
Proof: Two distinct substances can be differentiated either by some difference in their natures or by some difference in one of their alterable states of being. If they have different natures, then the original proposition is granted and the proof is complete. If, however, they are distinguished only by their states of being, then, considering the substances in themselves, there is no difference between the substances and they are identical. "That is, there cannot be several such substances but only one." [2]

3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something that shares its attribute).

4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.

5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.

Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.


Truthfully, there can be only energy, and if this is the case, then it can be said to be infinite and as having infinite attributes, because that is all that is; after concluding this, he stated famously: "Deus sive Natura," or God is Nature. Spinoza ultimately claims that all that exists is God, and that God is infinite. Of all the modes which God may be said to have, the two modes, or aspects, that are apparent to humans are Thought and Extension, where Thought is roughly defined as God's infinite intellect, and where Extension is matter itself.

Spinoza's philosophy was only studied during the 1800's, around 200 years after it was finalized. It was repressed for being against the church and he was threatened and almost killed several times during his life. Even by today's standards, it is among the best philosophy the west has ever produced. Although western religions don't agree, his metaphysics is demonstrably complete and final.

[NickAdams]

Bookworm,

You should have added a poll.

There was another thread on free will with a definition posted:

Definition of Free Will
- A condition that exists when an agent, such as a human being has the ability to change the outcome of future events by its actions.
- The existance of free will, as defined above, runs contrary to the doctrines of determinism, which holds that all future events are fixed, and of indeterminism, which holds that future events are variable but cannot be changed by force of will.

Future events would have to be fixed in order for an agent to alter them. If they a variable, then an agent would be choosing from a fixed option. Before we can determine free will, I believe we first have to determine if the future is fixed.

[hyperborean]

Future events would have to be fixed in order for an agent to alter them. If they a variable, then an agent would be choosing from a fixed option. Before we can determine free will, I believe we first have to determine if the future is fixed.

True, however, man can accomplish greater things by rejecting determinism. That's why I refuse to even ponder the possibility of a fixed future.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

True, however, man can accomplish greater things by rejecting determinism. That's why I refuse to even ponder the possibility of a fixed future.

I don't think so. In fact, I'd say that being truthful with oneself and our place would allow for more inspiration and veracity in one's work. Here's a short list of determinists:

Goethe
Voltaire
Camus
Spinoza
Schopenhauer
James
Holbach
Hobbes
Hardy
Hawthorne
Laplace
Einstein
Kant
Searle
Most notable scientists from last century

I think these guys were a little successful...

[Pendragon]

A point here, please, Dr. Ralph.

When you decided that Spinoza's philosophy was corect rather than Descartes', was that in and of itself not an exercise of your free will? No one forced you to believe one over the other, that was a choice. When man is given a choice and may decide for himself which road to take, that is a very plausible argument in favor of the fact that free will exists.

[NickAdams]

A point here, please, Dr. Ralph.

When you decided that Spinoza's philosophy was corect rather than Descartes', was that in and of itself not an exercise of your free will? No one forced you to believe one over the other, that was a choice. When man is given a choice and may decide for himself which road to take, that is a very plausible argument in favor of the fact that free will exists.

We only have choice in an unfixed future. But, it would be choice not free will. Free will depends upons a fixed future in order to alter it; however, if it is fixed then the diviation is the fixed and inevitable decision. Free will is a paradox.

Hmm ... anybody familiar with the theory that anti-matter, might be matter coming back from the end of time?

[Lote-Tree]

Big topic here that I would love to discuss, but the other one was closed, so let's discuss this without ad hominem, or going off the subject. If you don't, we will get kicked off. So, Does Man Have Free Will?

My belief- yes. Proof? First, I need an opponent. :D

I will be your opponent.

But what context is this topic?

Omniscient God or without God?

[Bakiryu]

I live with my parents so I don't think so, man does not have free will (until he's 18!)

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

A point here, please, Dr. Ralph.

When you decided that Spinoza's philosophy was corect rather than Descartes', was that in and of itself not an exercise of your free will? No one forced you to believe one over the other, that was a choice. When man is given a choice and may decide for himself which road to take, that is a very plausible argument in favor of the fact that free will exists.

No, Spinoza logically demonstrates that Descartes is false, much like how one can show that three line segments may form a triangle. It's not a choice, but in fact a logical necessity, and need not involve me at all. My brain is a causal system like anything else; the idea of choice is illusory and derived solely from the ego.

Men think themselves free, in so far as they are conscious of their volitions and desire, and ignorant of the causes by which they are disposed to will and desire... - Spinoza

[Redzeppelin]

No, Spinoza logically demonstrates that Descartes is false, much like how one can show that three line segments may form a triangle. It's not a choice, but in fact a logical necessity, and need not involve me at all. My brain is a causal system like anything else; the idea of choice is illusory and derived solely from the ego.

Men think themselves free, in so far as they are conscious of their volitions and desire, and ignorant of the causes by which they are disposed to will and desire... - Spinoza


Then who (or what) decided what Spinoza would say? If Spinoza isn't responsible for his "truth" then why should it carry any weight whatsoever? Why should any utterance of "truth" be considered such if not freely arrived at? Who's in charge here? Determinists attempt to argue from outside the frame of determinism (exempting their statements because to not do so would render their statements meaningless), but that cannot be so: if there is no freewill, then the words of determinists become meaningless.

And, by extension: who or what chose what you just now posted? Why should anything you (or I) say have any meaning if we did not choose those words and the viewpoints that drive them? You didn't choose Spinoza's views (because in philosophy it's not that easy to empirically prove that someone else's philosophic view is "right" or "wrong")?

[DeathAngel]

Man is free to do what he wants but it has its limitations in reality. However in the bible, man still does have his free will, but he must a path of rightousness in order to achieve a good afterlife, so in that sort of reality, no man does not have free will...
Even in general man does not have free will, we are limited to only so much, especially with these times n these days coming...

I hope I didn't say anyting bad or whatever..................................SCORPIOS RULE!

[Pendragon]

No, Spinoza logically demonstrates that Descartes is false, much like how one can show that three line segments may form a triangle. It's not a choice, but in fact a logical necessity, and need not involve me at all. My brain is a causal system like anything else; the idea of choice is illusory and derived solely from the ego.

Men think themselves free, in so far as they are conscious of their volitions and desire, and ignorant of the causes by which they are disposed to will and desire... - Spinoza So, your brain does not function indepently. You have no other choice than to act, think, or believe as you do, your brain is but a subsystem of a larger whole called "logic." I find that very illogical. If every one functioned without choice, we would all just be stamped out carbon copies of each other, driven by logic to all act the same. Your brain's function doesn't need to involve you at all? OK. I must then logically asume that you are dead. Anyone who isn't at least brain dead has to think to act. Even those who have trained themselves to think and act at the same time, must use their brainpower themselves. Choice is the gift and curse of man.

[Turk]

According to İslam everything happened and will happen are written in a book called Levh-i Mahfuz. Though man have free will. God's knowledge is beyond our will. He knows what will happen in future and according to this everything already happened somewhere. Though in our time. Today; we have free will.

[Lote-Tree]

According to İslam everything happened and will happen are written in a book called Levh-i Mahfuz.


Really then there is no Free Will.



Though man have free will. God's knowledge is beyond our will. He knows what will happen in future and according to this everything already happened somewhere.


Where is "somewhere"?



Though in our time. Today; we have free will.

This is not possible.

[Bookworm4Him]

I will be your opponent.

But what context is this topic?

Omniscient God or without God?

Well, I intended it to be with Omniscient God, more of a predestination (Presbyterians) vs. Free Choice (Baptist) and then to apply that to all life... But I forgot to specify... :D It doesn't matter all that much, anyway. So, how 'bout you and I debate from the omniscient God view. You first.
(sorry if it takes me awhile to respond. I can't get on that often. :bawling: )
C'ya!

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Then who (or what) decided what Spinoza would say? If Spinoza isn't responsible for his "truth" then why should it carry any weight whatsoever? Why should any utterance of "truth" be considered such if not freely arrived at? Who's in charge here? Determinists attempt to argue from outside the frame of determinism (exempting their statements because to not do so would render their statements meaningless), but that cannot be so: if there is no freewill, then the words of determinists become meaningless.

And, by extension: who or what chose what you just now posted? Why should anything you (or I) say have any meaning if we did not choose those words and the viewpoints that drive them? You didn't choose Spinoza's views (because in philosophy it's not that easy to empirically prove that someone else's philosophic view is "right" or "wrong")?

How can truth be freely arrived at? This is a contradiction.


So, your brain does not function indepently. You have no other choice than to act, think, or believe as you do, your brain is but a subsystem of a larger whole called "logic." I find that very illogical. If every one functioned without choice, we would all just be stamped out carbon copies of each other, driven by logic to all act the same. Your brain's function doesn't need to involve you at all? OK. I must then logically asume that you are dead. Anyone who isn't at least brain dead has to think to act. Even those who have trained themselves to think and act at the same time, must use their brainpower themselves. Choice is the gift and curse of man.

That's not close to what I said and you tend to misuse the word "logically."

Could both of you be a little more articulate, I can't understand much of what you wrote. And please spare me the italics and bold.

[Redzeppelin]

How can truth be freely arrived at? This is a contradiction.

My answer was not sufficiently clear; I'll try again. Truth cannot be a function of determinism; it must be arrived at throught the free choices of the mind that is examining and evaluating what the "truth" of something is or is not. In other words, in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing as truth because your utterances as to what the "truth" is (e.g. Spinoza's right and Descartes is wrong) are merely consequences of random neurons firing and chemicals squirting through your brains, or your socio-economic surroundings or whatever psychological conditions you suffer - but it wasn't you who uttered "truth" - it was the consequences of these processes on you. Truth cannot exist in a world where all human expression is merely the consequence of forces biological, physical, psychological or social.


Could both of you be a little more articulate, I can't understand much of what you wrote. And please spare me the italics and bold.

1) Maybe you ought to work a little harder at understanding us - since communication is a two-way street and I think Pen and I were quite clear.
2) "Spare you"? Sorry - I don't let posters dictate my writing style. Most educated people are quite clear on the usage of these stylistic devices.

[StormLogic]

Truth cannot be a function of determinism; it must be arrived at throught the free choices of the mind that is examining and evaluating what the "truth" of something is or is not.

I think the truth being referred to is defined as that which is independent of a particular viewpoint (hence the reference to three lines making a triangle).


So, your brain does not function indepently. You have no other choice than to act, think, or believe as you do, your brain is but a subsystem of a larger whole called "logic." I find that very illogical. If every one functioned without choice, we would all just be stamped out carbon copies of each other, driven by logic to all act the same.

This assumes all brains are identical.

[NickAdams]

I think the truth being referred to is defined as that which is independent of a particular viewpoint (hence the reference to three lines making a triangle).



This assumes all brains are identical.

Exactly. If this is to be an absolute truth, then it can not be based on something as inconsistent as the brain.

[Redzeppelin]

OK - let me try again: not all accepted "truths" are objective in nature (like the triangle example); there are many "truths" that are established through evaluation - like whether a philosophic position accurately describes life, human behavior or reality; or, whether or not we agree with a particular interpretation of an event, a work of art, a behavior someone is demonstrating. If determinism is the law of existence, there is no need to believe anything any of us says as "right" or "true" because those statements were the consequences of processes that are beyond our control. That's what I meant. Yes: a triangle is a triangle - but much of what we call reality and truth doesn't pan out that objectively.

[StormLogic]

If determinism is the law of existence, there is no need to believe anything any of us says as "right" or "true" because those statements were the consequences of processes that are beyond our control. That's what I meant. Yes: a triangle is a triangle - but much of what we call reality and truth doesn't pan out that objectively.

What we call truth and what is truth are not necessarily the same thing.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

My answer was not sufficiently clear; I'll try again. Truth cannot be a function of determinism; it must be arrived at throught the free choices of the mind that is examining and evaluating what the "truth" of something is or is not. In other words, in a deterministic universe, there is no such thing as truth because your utterances as to what the "truth" is (e.g. Spinoza's right and Descartes is wrong) are merely consequences of random neurons firing and chemicals squirting through your brains, or your socio-economic surroundings or whatever psychological conditions you suffer - but it wasn't you who uttered "truth" - it was the consequences of these processes on you. Truth cannot exist in a world where all human expression is merely the consequence of forces biological, physical, psychological or social.

1) Maybe you ought to work a little harder at understanding us - since communication is a two-way street and I think Pen and I were quite clear.
2) "Spare you"? Sorry - I don't let posters dictate my writing style. Most educated people are quite clear on the usage of these stylistic devices.

You, sir, have twisted my argument and then attacked it. Of course determinism is not a function of truth; this is a red herring. Whether or not the particular atoms which comprise my body "utter truth," they by no means change truth. In reality, there must be unchangeable axioms and principles on which to base existence; objective truth must exist.

You seem to think that truth is a pure mental construct, which I disagree with. Geometry and mathematics are based on a few axioms which are true regardless of human interpretation of them, such as the relationship between circumference and diameter (as opposed to history, literature, etc). In other words, if Earth were completely destroyed tomorrow, the relationship between a circle's circumference and diameter will exist because they do not depend on anything but themselves. Although the word "truth" is often used as a mental construct in everyday speech, this crass definition isn't suitable for reasoning.

Perhaps you should let your syntax show which words are emphasized. Italics and bold hardly have style.

Edit:
What we call truth and what is truth are not necessarily the same thing.

Quoted for truth.

[Turk]

Really then there is no Free Will.

Where is "somewhere"?

This is not possible.

Do you know stars you see above are dead since millions of years?

[Lote-Tree]

Do you know stars you see above are dead since millions of years?

Where is somewhere?

[Turk]

I never travelled faster than light, that's why i don't know. But you don't think about existence of God. If you would be out of time, then everything happened in time would be known by you. Because you would be beyond of the time. And this wouldn't mean people doesn't have free will.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

Most of them are still alive actually...

[Turk]

As i know most of them are dead. But doesn't matter it's enough even some of them are dead, it's enough to point a thought.

[Lote-Tree]

{edit}

But you don't think about existence of God. If you would be out of time, then everything happened in time would be known by you. Because you would be beyond of the time. And this wouldn't mean people doesn't have free will.

Regardless of God being outside time etc...omniscience and free will is logical impossibility. As you said - everything is written in a book and just like characters in a novel don't have free will so do we...

[Turk]

{edit}
Regardless of God being outside time etc...omniscience and free will is logical impossibility. As you said - everything is written in a book and just like characters in a novel don't have free will so do we...

Well, have you watched movie named Lord of the Rings?

[Lote-Tree]

{edit}

Well, have you watched movie named Lord of the Rings?

None of the characters have free will. Only will that they have is the will of the author/narator.

[Scheherazade]

Warning

Please do not personalise your argument; it is the ideas that we discuss, not other members.

[Turk]

None of the characters have free will. Only will that they have is the will of the author/narator.

Well, i didn't mean that. Knowing what will happen next doesn't mean there's no free will. I've watched this movie, so i would know what will happen next if i'd watch it for second time. Does it means i am controlling actors? God knows everything happened in future, it's in his knowledge. Also i didn't say that book is never changeable. In fact many Islamic scholars says prayers can change Levh-i Mahfuz, so future is changeable.

[Lote-Tree]

Does it means i am controlling actors?


Author created the characters he knows everything about them including the choices they will make. Yes, it is the author that controls them.



God knows everything happened in future, it's in his knowledge.




Also i didn't say that book is never changeable.
In fact many Islamic scholars says prayers can change Levh-i Mahfuz, so future is changeable.

This is contradictory.

[NickAdams]

In fact many Islamic scholars says prayers can change Levh-i Mahfuz, so future is changeable.

To know that the future was altered, they would first need to know the future. They believe the future was changed, but its faith not fact.

It's like someone prays for money and 5 years later they recieve it from hard work, and credits the prayer.

[Pendragon]

That's not close to what I said and you tend to misuse the word "logically."

Could both of you be a little more articulate, I can't understand much of what you wrote. And please spare me the italics and bold.

I beg Scher's patience just once, I promise not to be harsh.

My friend, verbosity is no indication of intelligence, as computers have built-in spell-checkers, grammar checkers, and thesauruses. I have not “misused” any word, if it doesn’t match your personal definition of the word that is not my problem. I gave an accurate summary of your statement, if your own medicine becomes bitter; I suggest you make no more of it. You expect us to accept what you say without question. I do not bow at your altar; I live my own life. And since you want to get in my face about this: Have a nice day!

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/NiceDay.gif




This assumes all brains are identical. {edit} The human brain is the most misunderstood organ in the body. Bigger is not always more intelligent. I recall reading of one genius whom, upon his death was discovered to have virtually no brain at all, just cells lining the skull cavity.

[Turk]

To know that the future was altered, they would first need to know the future. They believe the future was changed, but its faith not fact.

It's like someone prays for money and 5 years later they recieve it from hard work, and credits the prayer.

Yeah, i agree first line, it's faith. Like many things in life. But i don't think second line is related to this.


This is contradictory.

No, it's not. God able to do anything. And if he wants for prayers of good people he may change the future.


Author created the characters he knows everything about them including the choices they will make. Yes, it is the author that controls them.

Well, he have high will (Kulli İrade=Total Will) but we do have little will, so he creates concept of good and choices, but we choose 'em. He creates every action and thing but we choose them. For example concept of death created by God, just like concept of goodness or life, but you are the one who choose one of choices, for example if you kill someone you choosed it if you help and give good things to someone, then it's you choice too. Also he knows everything happened, but that doesn't mean he forced you to do something.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I beg Scher's patience just once, I promise not to be harsh.

My friend, verbosity is no indication of intelligence, as computers have built-in spell-checkers, grammar checkers, and thesauruses. I have not “misused” any word, if it doesn’t match your personal definition of the word that is not my problem. I gave an accurate summary of your statement, if your own medicine becomes bitter; I suggest you make no more of it. You expect us to accept what you say without question. I do not bow at your altar; I live my own life. And since you want to get in my face about this: Have a nice day!

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/NiceDay.gif

{edit}

Logic roughly refers to the crude science of thought, arriving at demonstrable certainties. I recall you once used the phrase "logically assume" and proceed to build an argument on it; the phrase is oxymoronic. The argument is pretty nonsequitur as well, just saying.

I admit that I often become tired after reading the same use of "choose" and "decide" throughout replies to my more mathematical and rigorous posts. Even your buddy Descartes mentions that words used in everyday speech have no license to be used in logic and reason. Using these palpably sophistical words during an intelligent discussion actually impedes progress. I will state my argument once more, though much more tersely.

Spinoza uses rigorous and airtight logic to show that there can only be one substance in reality, which destroy's Descartes' idea of the mind acting separately from the body. Spinoza proceeded to build a mountain of incredible philosophy based on this idea that there can be no plurality of substances.

Furthermore, Einstein famously demonstrated, through mathematics, that atoms may be converted into a combination of potential and kinetic energy (E=mc^2 in a nutshell). He and a team of badass scientists then created an atomic bomb; a similar phenomenon called nuclear fusion is constantly used in trillions of stars. In short, all that exists is energy, and that is pretty much final. There can be no dualism between God and humans because all that can be is one substance, hence Spinoza's famous summary "God or nature," as they are not logically discernible. The same method of reasoning is used to show that there cannot be four sides to a triangle.

[Redzeppelin]

You, sir, have twisted my argument and then attacked it. Of course determinism is not a function of truth; this is a red herring. Whether or not the particular atoms which comprise my body "utter truth," they by no means change truth. In reality, there must be unchangeable axioms and principles on which to base existence; objective truth must exist.

I have dealt with your argument as best I understand it - and don't feel too insulted that I "attacked" it - I thought that was kind of expected in a discussion forum. My language was inexact: no - truth is not a function of determinism - but determinism negates the idea that our expressions can contain truth because truth must be arrived at through a discrimination between competing ideas (because not all truth is mathematical in nature and requires interpretation and context to properly evaluate); some truths can only be arrived at by examination and evaluation - but if freewill doesn't exist, then it seems that any conclusions we would arrive at about the "truth" of a matter would be purely arbitraray, having been arrived at through deterministic processes that do not allow for any true consideration of the facts at hand.

Everything we know comes to us through our senses, and we make inferences about the world we live in via those senses; these inferences lead us to more detailed conclusions; as such, all possible knowlege depends upon the validity of our reasoning (that with with we make inferences); if the certainty we express by words such as must be, therefore and since is a real perception as to how things outside our own minds must be, then all is well and good. But, if this sense of certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into the realities beyond them - if it merely represents how our minds work (determinism) - then we can have no knowledge at all (liberal borrowing from CS Lewis, Miracles).

In other words: our perception of the reality of the world cannot be true if determinism is correct, because our vision of what the world is merely a result of how our minds work electronically/chemically, rather than a conscious appraisal and system of inferences we make using our reason.


You seem to think that truth is a pure mental construct, which I disagree with. Geometry and mathematics are based on a few axioms which are true regardless of human interpretation of them, such as the relationship between circumference and diameter (as opposed to history, literature, etc). In other words, if Earth were completely destroyed tomorrow, the relationship between a circle's circumference and diameter will exist because they do not depend on anything but themselves. Although the word "truth" is often used as a mental construct in everyday speech, this crass definition isn't suitable for reasoning.

Truth is not purely a mental construct; but neither is all truth empirically arrived at by mathematical means. You keep quoting mathematical proofs as if that's all reality is founded upon: what mathematical proofs can you offer me that any of your posts contain any truth whatsoever? Aren't your posts merely a result of the random electronic/chemical processes in your brain over which you have no say or control?


Perhaps you should let your syntax show which words are emphasized. Italics and bold hardly have style.

Perhaps you should get over my writing style - I don't need a composition lecture, thank you.

[UltimaHybrid]

i have to say yes Man does have free will .. in the sport i am involved in >>>Parkour. they teach me that through every obstacle there is a path...use what you have (the human body) in any case.. man can do whatever the hell he wants right??? nope he cant i'll let someone finish what i'm saying

[NickAdams]

i have to say yes Man does have free will .. in the sport i am involved in >>>Parkour. they teach me that through every obstacle there is a path...use what you have (the human body) in any case.. man can do whatever the hell he wants right??? nope he cant i'll let someone finish what i'm saying

But in a fixed future, every "spontaneous" action, to counter an obstacle has been determined. If the future is not fixed, then free will doesn't exist, because free will relies on a fixed future to alter.

[UltimaHybrid]

bravo bravo bravo.. kudos.. i have no idea what that word means....

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I have dealt with your argument as best I understand it - and don't feel too insulted that I "attacked" it - I thought that was kind of expected in a discussion forum. My language was inexact: no - truth is not a function of determinism - but determinism negates the idea that our expressions can contain truth because truth must be arrived at through a discrimination between competing ideas (because not all truth is mathematical in nature and requires interpretation and context to properly evaluate); some truths can only be arrived at by examination and evaluation - but if freewill doesn't exist, then it seems that any conclusions we would arrive at about the "truth" of a matter would be purely arbitraray, having been arrived at through deterministic processes that do not allow for any true consideration of the facts at hand.

Determinism does not negate the idea that our expressions can contain truth. The term refers to the idea that everything is causally determined based on the preceeding laws. Anything but that is speculation. Whether or not you truly consider facts at hand anymore, it will have been causally determined to be that way.


Everything we know comes to us through our senses, and we make inferences about the world we live in via those senses; these inferences lead us to more detailed conclusions; as such, all possible knowlege depends upon the validity of our reasoning (that with with we make inferences); if the certainty we express by words such as must be, therefore and since is a real perception as to how things outside our own minds must be, then all is well and good. But, if this sense of certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into the realities beyond them - if it merely represents how our minds work (determinism) - then we can have no knowledge at all (liberal borrowing from CS Lewis, Miracles).

In other words: our perception of the reality of the world cannot be true if determinism is correct, because our vision of what the world is merely a result of how our minds work electronically/chemically, rather than a conscious appraisal and system of inferences we make using our reason.

This was interesting, I will give you credit. How the mind works biochemically and the conscious appraisal and reasoning are very similar. The conscious appraisal and reasoning is merely the result of biochemistry and ultimately physics which my brain uses during its lifetime. Ultimately everything is a bunch of energy moving around, so you could say that we don't really know anything; there's only one substance and thus no comparison.



Truth is not purely a mental construct; but neither is all truth empirically arrived at by mathematical means. You keep quoting mathematical proofs as if that's all reality is founded upon: what mathematical proofs can you offer me that any of your posts contain any truth whatsoever? Aren't your posts merely a result of the random electronic/chemical processes in your brain over which you have no say or control?

How does one empirically arrive at something by mathematical means?

Math is not what reality is founded upon, it's the predictible way it behaves, and it isn't used to tell people how truthful a post is. Anything dealing with quantities is pretty much mathematics, or can be mathematically shown. My posts are from determined biochemical processes in my brain, and to say that "I" have no control over it is pretty arbitrary when the pronoun refers to something which is not different than anything else.

The use of language very much kills the ability to see things as they are. You know separate words for different objects, how they move and how you feel, but its under the false pretense that they are about separate things. All matter is a form of energy (or substance) and it shifts, as it were. What you refer to as you is in fact no different.

[quasimodo1]

My answer is yes and no. I suppose if a person really wants one and puts effort into having it, then it is possible. If will is really free, than bad habits would be rid of more easily, yes? For me, Ambrose Bierce took on this question with his definition of the word "decide" or decision. " A decision is the preponderance of one set of influences over another." If he is right, this debunks at least partially, a totally free will. Another quote might help...forget the author..."We are a part of all that we have met". So many forces and emotions, thoughts and instincts govern our behavior, the concept of free will is at best partially true and always tenuous. quasimodo1

[Lote-Tree]

No, it's not. God able to do anything. And if he wants for prayers of good people he may change the future.


God is Omniscient - there is "no may". God knows the future already. Even the "prayers of good people" so there is no need to alter the future. If he needed to do that then he is not omnisicient - hence contradictory.



Well, he have high will (Kulli İrade=Total Will) but we do have little will, so he creates concept of good and choices, but we choose 'em.


Show me how Characters in a novel make choices. Remember everything that will happen is already written down in a book by God.



He creates every action and thing but we choose them. For example concept of death created by God, just like concept of goodness or life, but you are the one who choose one of choices, for example if you kill someone you choosed it if you help and give good things to someone, then it's you choice too. Also he knows everything happened, but that doesn't mean he forced you to do something.

See above.

[StormLogic]

The human brain is the most misunderstood organ in the body. Bigger is not always more intelligent.

The argument presented by Pendragon appeared to be that if determinism were true, everyone would act like clones - a counter-argument is that this assumes everyone is being acted on by identical causes (i.e. has an identical brain).

[Scheherazade]

Please do not personalise your arguments.

If you do not like a poster's arguments, wordings and/or style, feel free to ignore them.

[Pendragon]

As I said, "Have a nice day." Pointless arguments do no one any good. If the good Doctor will accept my apology for any misunderstandings, I am certain I will not bother anyone further.

[quasimodo1]

Dear Pen: It seems to me that when religion gets on a forum, objectivity and openmindedness go off. I'm sure that i've upset more than one deist or believer, very few of whom seem to be able to comprehend spirituality without need of deity. There's no oxymoron there. quasimodo1

[Redzeppelin]

Determinism does not negate the idea that our expressions can contain truth. The term refers to the idea that everything is causally determined based on the preceeding laws. Anything but that is speculation. Whether or not you truly consider facts at hand anymore, it will have been causally determined to be that way.

My understanding of determinism is pretty simple, so I may be saying stupid things here, but I understand determinism to mean that choice is a determined by some force or influence in my life - not my will. Granted: many things may influence our choices, but determinism suggests that the choice was not mine, but the processes that surround me.



This was interesting, I will give you credit. How the mind works biochemically and the conscious appraisal and reasoning are very similar. The conscious appraisal and reasoning is merely the result of biochemistry and ultimately physics which my brain uses during its lifetime. Ultimately everything is a bunch of energy moving around, so you could say that we don't really know anything; there's only one substance and thus no comparison.

Thank you. Lewis articulates my belief much better than I can: if our perception of how the world is is merely a function of how our brain works and not a conscious, freely chosen inference, then we can know nothing.


How does one empirically arrive at something by mathematical means?

I should have written "by empirical or mathematical means."


Math is not what reality is founded upon, it's the predictible way it behaves, and it isn't used to tell people how truthful a post is. Anything dealing with quantities is pretty much mathematics, or can be mathematically shown. My posts are from determined biochemical processes in my brain, and to say that "I" have no control over it is pretty arbitrary when the pronoun refers to something which is not different than anything else.

Going metaphysical on me doesn't change the fact that you just admitted that your thoughts were the product of determined biochemical processes; as such, they can hold no true validity because you weren't in charge of those ideas.


The use of language very much kills the ability to see things as they are. You know separate words for different objects, how they move and how you feel, but its under the false pretense that they are about separate things. All matter is a form of energy (or substance) and it shifts, as it were. What you refer to as you is in fact no different.

But we have to use language to communicate. Just because all matter may be a form of energy doesn't make all matter identical. A tree and a guitar are both made of wood, but they function quite differently and are separate things.


God is Omniscient - there is "no may". God knows the future already. Even the "prayers of good people" so there is no need to alter the future. If he needed to do that then he is not omnisicient - hence contradictory.

This presupposes the idea that the future exists to be known. Does it? How do you know?



Show me how Characters in a novel make choices. Remember everything that will happen is already written down in a book by God.

Still on the novel analogy, huh? That one doesn't work because we are real and the characters in a novel aren't; we exist and have been given an independent physical, psychological and moral reality that characters of a novel (imaginative creations) do not. They're not the same - at least in the way you're trying to connect them.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I think I've stated my point well enough to leave things more or less as they are. The concept of the self, what you call you, must be completely illusory. To state that "you choose something" does not follow because there is only one thing; you're comprised of atoms and they are concentrated energy, and perceived changes are only a result of its kinetic manifestation. Any mention of the soul or afterlife is an appeal to the imagination and not grounded.

All that is (matter and its movement) is fundamentally identical, the differences appear as a result of our ignorance of this fact. I don't like it anymore than you do, but at the same time this is the only way things can be.

[Redzeppelin]

I think I've stated my point well enough to leave things more or less as they are. The concept of the self, what you call you, must be completely illusory. To state that "you choose something" does not follow because there is only one thing; you're comprised of atoms and they are concentrated energy, and perceived changes are only a result of its kinetic manifestation. Any mention of the soul or afterlife is an appeal to the imagination and not grounded.

All that is (matter and its movement) is fundamentally identical, the differences appear as a result of our ignorance of this fact. I don't like it anymore than you do, but at the same time this is the only way things can be.

Our fundamental difference appears to be our foundational philosophies: I believe I am a divinely created creature and was given the gift of free will; your comments suggest that you are a naturalist and view life as only material in nature. If this is so, then that would adequately explain our differing positions.

[BibliophileTRJ]

Yes, man does have free will........that is, of course, until he gets married.

[Redzeppelin]

Yes, man does have free will........that is, of course, until he gets married.

I figured that was a given...:D

[StormLogic]

Did you get the PM I sent you, Mr. Dr. Ralph?

[Night Closet]

yes MAN has afree well
according to many religions " isalm, christianity, and the jews" , Man has got the absolute free well, and freedom to choose

Thomas Aquinas, " the scholastic philosopher", proved thaT God has the absolute knowledge of MAN's attitudes and plans , but as the known God do not interfer in Man's choice so Man bears the bearings of his choices

THE Night Closet

[ELizabeth McC]

yes MAN has afree well


But is there any water in it? ;)

My humble apologies :blush:


Yes, man does have free will........that is, of course, until he gets married.


I figured that was a given...

May I refer both you chaps to the "Will feminism dismantle patriarchy" thread... You need to spend more time there ;)

[billyjack]

in the dualistic terminology of the english language "free will" does indeed exist. but we probably shouldnt take the rules of english grammar to be synonymous with the patterns of the universe.

[Pendragon]

Our fundamental difference appears to be our foundational philosophies: I know, I said I wouldn't bother people. Forgive me, please.

Guys, you may not have noticed, but this is the Religious Section, not the Philosophical Section. The question of free will therefore should be approached from the religious standpoint. If one wishes to discuss the philosophical implications of the thought, why not start a thread on the Philosophy Section?

Free will as it applies to Religion is thus: Does God hold the fate of man, or can man choose his own fate? Will a man's choices be in the end what saves or dooms him? I suggest reading Ezekiel chapter 18 and chapter 33, and the last chapter of Revelation. These scriptures clearly point out that a man's choice will be his salvation or doom.

God Bless.

Pen.

[linz]

I do not believe in free will, it seems to me that a person must be all knowing in order to act absolutely. If a person does wrong regularly from not knowing of God or his consequences, the only thing he can be held absolutely in contempt of is being foolish. The Lord said 'they are like us now' when Adam and Eve sinned. I'm guessing from Job that 'us' means God and Satan, but this still doesn't justify the idea of human will. If your a goat or a sheep you can't help but be one or the other. You are what you are. :)

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

I know, I said I wouldn't bother people. Forgive me, please.

Guys, you may not have noticed, but this is the Religious Section, not the Philosophical Section. The question of free will therefore should be approached from the religious standpoint. If one wishes to discuss the philosophical implications of the thought, why not start a thread on the Philosophy Section?

Free will as it applies to Religion is thus: Does God hold the fate of man, or can man choose his own fate? Will a man's choices be in the end what saves or dooms him? I suggest reading Ezekiel chapter 18 and chapter 33, and the last chapter of Revelation. These scriptures clearly point out that a man's choice will be his salvation or doom.

God Bless.

Pen.

Not everyone's religion is Christianity.

[Pendragon]

Not everyone's religion is Christianity.

Point taken. Dr. Ralph is correct. I cannot help but notice this post:


yes MAN has afree well
according to many religions " isalm, christianity, and the jews" , Man has got the absolute free well, and freedom to choose


Perhaps someone from another Religion would like to present his or her scriptural reference?

[weepingforloman]

I do not believe in free will, it seems to me that a person must be all knowing in order to act absolutely. If a person does wrong regularly from not knowing of God or his consequences, the only thing he can be held absolutely in contempt of is being foolish. The Lord said 'they are like us now' when Adam and Eve sinned. I'm guessing from Job that 'us' means God and Satan, but this still doesn't justify the idea of human will. If your a goat or a sheep you can't help but be one or the other. You are what you are. :)

God said "they are like us now" in that Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (God uses the royal "we" to refer to Himself all through the creation narrative, though it can also be used as proof of the Trinity), not to mean that humanity was like God and Satan. If you believe what you say about foolishness/ignorance being the only cause for disapproval, read Romans. God has written His law on our hearts, that even those who never hear the Gospel are without excuse.


I know, I said I wouldn't bother people. Forgive me, please.

Guys, you may not have noticed, but this is the Religious Section, not the Philosophical Section. The question of free will therefore should be approached from the religious standpoint. If one wishes to discuss the philosophical implications of the thought, why not start a thread on the Philosophy Section?

Free will as it applies to Religion is thus: Does God hold the fate of man, or can man choose his own fate? Will a man's choices be in the end what saves or dooms him? I suggest reading Ezekiel chapter 18 and chapter 33, and the last chapter of Revelation. These scriptures clearly point out that a man's choice will be his salvation or doom.

God Bless.

Pen.

I would counter by referring to the countless instances of God "hardening" a man's heart, as well as numerous references to the opposite effect... Even Paul's conversion. I would specifically point to Exodus, with the hardening of Pharaoh.

[Pendragon]

I would counter by referring to the countless instances of God "hardening" a man's heart, as well as numerous references to the opposite effect... Even Paul's conversion. I would specifically point to Exodus, with the hardening of Pharaoh.True. But scripture cannot contradict scripture. Pharaoh had been given a chance to allow the slaves to go free without punishment. He refused. So God took full punishment on Egypt for the entire 400 years of slavery and all the children slain by that Pharaoh who tried to kill Moses. Thus to exact punishment, he hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

Paul's conversion is an example of a man being given a choice. He asked what he was supposed to do. He could have refused, and added Aninias to his list of people to arrest. He chose to go God's way.

This is a closed book with me. I believe in man's free will. That said, if another does not, who am I to judge and say that they are wrong? If we both are sincere in our service to God, we do God a disservice by allowing that point to be our dividing line. United we stand, but a house divided against itself will surely fall.

God Bless.

Pen.

[weepingforloman]

True. But scripture cannot contradict scripture. Pharaoh had been given a chance to allow the slaves to go free without punishment. He refused. So God took full punishment on Egypt for the entire 400 years of slavery and all the children slain by that Pharaoh who tried to kill Moses. Thus to exact punishment, he hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

Paul's conversion is an example of a man being given a choice. He asked what he was supposed to do. He could have refused, and added Aninias to his list of people to arrest. He chose to go God's way.

This is a closed book with me. I believe in man's free will. That said, if another does not, who am I to judge and say that they are wrong? If we both are sincere in our service to God, we do God a disservice by allowing that point to be our dividing line. United we stand, but a house divided against itself will surely fall.

God Bless.

Pen.

Right you are. No reason to fight. However, for the sake of the pure intellectual argument, I would like to make one last comment. True, on the surface Pharaoh was offered the choice of allowing Israel to go free. However, as I understand it (just clarifying my point--don't want to get into a bigger mess, here), internally his heart was continually hardened, in order that God might accomplish His will in punishing Egypt. Last post, I promise.

[Redzeppelin]

True. But scripture cannot contradict scripture. Pharaoh had been given a chance to allow the slaves to go free without punishment. He refused. So God took full punishment on Egypt for the entire 400 years of slavery and all the children slain by that Pharaoh who tried to kill Moses. Thus to exact punishment, he hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

Some theologians argue that the action of God's conviction on the human heart will either soften it or harden it - that the statement "God hardened Pharoh's heart" does not necessarily mean that the "hardening" was consciously done by God's action, but that the condition of Pharoh's heart caused it to "harden" in response to the conviction of God upon it. Since God knows us intimately, it may be assumed that God was certain that Pharoh would choose thusly, but there was a chance (however small) that Pharoh might have chosen otherwise.

[weepingforloman]

Some theologians argue that the action of God's conviction on the human heart will either soften it or harden it - that the statement "God hardened Pharoh's heart" does not necessarily mean that the "hardening" was consciously done by God's action, but that the condition of Pharoh's heart caused it to "harden" in response to the conviction of God upon it. Since God knows us intimately, it may be assumed that God was certain that Pharoh would choose thusly, but there was a chance (however small) that Pharoh might have chosen otherwise.

Okay, but how about "He gave them over to unnatural passions"?

[atiguhya padma]

We are condensed experience. Our 'choices' are influenced by personal history and present environment. In order to continue operating in the world, we are fooled by the brain into thinking that we have freewill. It makes sense out of our conditioned responses.

It seems to me that true free choice, if there is such a thing, would have to be spontaneous and random, free from premeditation and bias. It would have to break the linear nature of the cause and effect process that rules the Universe. There is no freewill. For an intellectually demanding argument against freewill read Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons. For a more relaxing and leisurely argument, read John Gray's Straw Dogs.

[Redzeppelin]

Okay, but how about "He gave them over to unnatural passions"?

He allowed them to pursue that which would hurt them in a variety of ways. I don't get what you're implying with this example in terms of free will.

If you're suggesting that the verb "gave" indicates active action by God I disagree.

[weepingforloman]

I think that "gave" is a verb, is it not? Verbs imply action, and give is a relatively active verb. I would also refer you to the episode in which God confuses (I believe that is the term used, though I may be wrong) the Egyptians, and causes them to give over their wealth to the Israelites before they left. Plus, the term hardening is used so repetitiously that it seems to indicate God's direct action. Additionally the term "elect" and "those He chose" would imply that God does in fact elect His people, and if He does that, why should He not have the power to force action or deny the will of people being exercised?

[Redzeppelin]

I think that "gave" is a verb, is it not? Verbs imply action, and give is a relatively active verb. I would also refer you to the episode in which God confuses (I believe that is the term used, though I may be wrong) the Egyptians, and causes them to give over their wealth to the Israelites before they left. Plus, the term hardening is used so repetitiously that it seems to indicate God's direct action. Additionally the term "elect" and "those He chose" would imply that God does in fact elect His people, and if He does that, why should He not have the power to force action or deny the will of people being exercised?

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary lists 53 definitions for the word "give" - so it's not quite as cut-and-dried as you're trying to make it. I'm trying to make a linguistic point here about what the word "gave" implies in terms of God's action. "Give over" is defined as such: "to put into the care of; transfer." So, I would reply that God's "giving over" of those listed in Romans to their "unnatural passions" was less God doing something in the way of choosing what these people would serve and more of allowing them to be put into the care of the Devil due to their choices (cf. Paul's recommendation in I Corinthians about the man living in sexual immorality). Such behavior is passive action - He withdraws His care and allows them to be "given" completely to their passions without mitigating conviction from the Holy Spirit. I can't say for certain that that is what it means, but the point I'm making about "give" is that it doesn't imply necessarily here that God did anything that impeded the free choice of these individuals.

The frequency of the usage of "hardens" does not change what it means; C.S. Lewis said that Christ generally recieved one of three responses here on earth: 1) you worshipped him; 2) you were terrified of him; 3) you hated him. I believe that that's true, and I don't wonder if the conviction of the Holy Spirit on the human heart doesn't create the same responses in humans. The sun alternately hardens and softens different materials here on earth - perhaps the contents of our hearts create a similar interaction with the warmth of the Holy Spirit is applied.

[weepingforloman]

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary lists 53 definitions for the word "give" - so it's not quite as cut-and-dried as you're trying to make it. I'm trying to make a linguistic point here about what the word "gave" implies in terms of God's action. "Give over" is defined as such: "to put into the care of; transfer." So, I would reply that God's "giving over" of those listed in Romans to their "unnatural passions" was less God doing something in the way of choosing what these people would serve and more of allowing them to be put into the care of the Devil due to their choices (cf. Paul's recommendation in I Corinthians about the man living in sexual immorality). Such behavior is passive action - He withdraws His care and allows them to be "given" completely to their passions without mitigating conviction from the Holy Spirit. I can't say for certain that that is what it means, but the point I'm making about "give" is that it doesn't imply necessarily here that God did anything that impeded the free choice of these individuals.

The frequency of the usage of "hardens" does not change what it means; C.S. Lewis said that Christ generally recieved one of three responses here on earth: 1) you worshipped him; 2) you were terrified of him; 3) you hated him. I believe that that's true, and I don't wonder if the conviction of the Holy Spirit on the human heart doesn't create the same responses in humans. The sun alternately hardens and softens different materials here on earth - perhaps the contents of our hearts create a similar interaction with the warmth of the Holy Spirit is applied.

A.) You precisely made my point with regards to the "give over" thing: God, through the withdrawal of His gracious assistance allows the men to exercise their own will (I will not say free, for a different reason). But until that point, God had been restraining them. That is the eternal way it works: God restrains the sinful nature of man, and when He does not, man sins.

B.) God knows the effect of His own Spirit beforehand-- therefore, in His infinite wisdom and according to His plan, He uses the effect of the Spirit to accomplish His means. As John Calvin says, God does not sit idly in a tower hoping that fortune will accomplish His means.

Grace and Peace.

[Redzeppelin]

A.) You precisely made my point with regards to the "give over" thing: God, through the withdrawal of His gracious assistance allows the men to exercise their own will (I will not say free, for a different reason). But until that point, God had been restraining them. That is the eternal way it works: God restrains the sinful nature of man, and when He does not, man sins.

The "restraint" is not active - He stops them from nothing - but He may be convicting them and dropping consequences into their lives to try and steer them away from the cliff they're heading pell-mell towards - but I do not believe He actively impedes our free will.


B.) God knows the effect of His own Spirit beforehand-- therefore, in His infinite wisdom and according to His plan, He uses the effect of the Spirit to accomplish His means. As John Calvin says, God does not sit idly in a tower hoping that fortune will accomplish His means.

Grace and Peace.

Knowing how we will react to a certain situation does not mean He made us choose as we did. We still freely chose, and there is always the chance that we could choose otherwise.

[weepingforloman]

The "restraint" is not active - He stops them from nothing - but He may be convicting them and dropping consequences into their lives to try and steer them away from the cliff they're heading pell-mell towards - but I do not believe He actively impedes our free will.



Knowing how we will react to a certain situation does not mean He made us choose as we did. We still freely chose, and there is always the chance that we could choose otherwise.

Ah, now we reach the fundamental break. Calvinism for me, and I think you would feel comfortable describing yourself as Wesleyan or Arminian? I believe that man's will is always (in the present life, of course) disposed toward evil, and cannot overcome it. I believe that only God's active restraint prevents totality of sin. However, I do not argue that we freely choose to do evil, only that God at times chooses to restrain us. Calvin says we sin "of necessity, but not under compulsion." We will sin, this is inevitable. But God does not compel us to do so.

[kilted exile]

A.) You precisely made my point with regards to the "give over" thing: God, through the withdrawal of His gracious assistance allows the men to exercise their own will (I will not say free, for a different reason). But until that point, God had been restraining them. That is the eternal way it works: God restrains the sinful nature of man, and when He does not, man sins.

B.) God knows the effect of His own Spirit beforehand-- therefore, in His infinite wisdom and according to His plan, He uses the effect of the Spirit to accomplish His means. As John Calvin says, God does not sit idly in a tower hoping that fortune will accomplish His means.

Grace and Peace.

See, this is where Calvin & you are on a slippery slope. If God restrains people sometimes, why not all the time - especially in the case of bad things happening to good people.

[weepingforloman]

Don't you see that if Calvin is correct there are no good people? However, this is an important issue. God does not restrain us all the time for several reasons. He does not desire a universe of automatons-- He sometimes allows us to carry out our will because to do otherwise would essentially negate the most God-like thing about humanity-- the ability to choose and act on choice. Furthermore, He allows it to strengthen us-- faith and morals are like muscles, they must be used in order to remain strong. And He allows sin in order to both convict (pangs of conscience sometimes are more effective than a thousand blessings) and to judge (living with the consequences of sin is like a pre-Judgment judgment). And, please remember, I don't have all (if any) of the answers.

Grace and Peace.

[Redzeppelin]

Ah, now we reach the fundamental break. Calvinism for me, and I think you would feel comfortable describing yourself as Wesleyan or Arminian? I believe that man's will is always (in the present life, of course) disposed toward evil, and cannot overcome it. I believe that only God's active restraint prevents totality of sin. However, I do not argue that we freely choose to do evil, only that God at times chooses to restrain us. Calvin says we sin "of necessity, but not under compulsion." We will sin, this is inevitable. But God does not compel us to do so.

You're right: Calvinist I'm not. Paul made it clear that we freely choose who we serve. His words become nonsense if free will doesn't exist.

[weepingforloman]

No, they don't. I will present the Reader's Digest version of the Calvinist will:

1. Originally free.

2. Made slave to sin after the Fall.

3. Freed by faith-- but the trappings of flesh cause the believer to sin.

Hence-- God frees our will and we freely choose to believe. I'm just glad to see we're both thinking about this kind of thing.

Grace and Peace, Red.

[kilted exile]

The calvinist attitude is one of the more difficult concepts to reconcile with a benevolent god, I guess the more apt term to have used is innocent rather than good. Dont worry though I'm not looking for answers, existence of gods or otherwise doesnt interest me - belief systems do, I am interested in the abrahamic religions in probably the same way the religions of Ancient Greece, Rome & Egypt interest you. Only difference is I have living followers of these religions to pose questions to.

[weepingforloman]

I wish you'd reconsider your stance, and I don't think the concept of a benevolent God is hard to reconcile with Calvinism... but I won't get into that.

Personally, I think Norse and Irish mythology are so much more interesting than Greco-Roman, don't you?

[kilted exile]

Nah, my childhood was filled with the tales of Greek & roman gods. It fascinates me more than the stories of Odin, Thor & Valhalla

[weepingforloman]

Oh, I dunno, the Norse mythology has that sorrowful pang to it... You ultimately know that the gods themselves are doomed, and that man must begin again in an empty world. Very tragic, very timeline oriented (the Greco-Roman gods seem to live in a vacuum). And I love the concept of the World-Tree... I guess I am biased, I have German (they came from Scandinavia originally) heritage, I take German in school, and I am very attached to the whole Arthurian tradition, including the Saxons, and they had the Norse gods too.

Well, this is off topic any way. Sorry for the tangent.

[Redzeppelin]

No, they don't. I will present the Reader's Digest version of the Calvinist will:

1. Originally free.

2. Made slave to sin after the Fall.

3. Freed by faith-- but the trappings of flesh cause the believer to sin.

Hence-- God frees our will and we freely choose to believe. I'm just glad to see we're both thinking about this kind of thing.

Grace and Peace, Red.

My words about the conflict between Paul and Calvinism are due to Divine Election. We must be able to choose God freely - that is the whole point of the original "test" in the garden of Eden: would humanity freely choose to serve God? The only way to answer that honestly is to have the legitmate choice to rebel. Divine Election seems to override that human responsibility.

[Turk]

Yes he does. If you say no he doesn't that means he does too.

[weepingforloman]

My words about the conflict between Paul and Calvinism are due to Divine Election. We must be able to choose God freely - that is the whole point of the original "test" in the garden of Eden: would humanity freely choose to serve God? The only way to answer that honestly is to have the legitmate choice to rebel. Divine Election seems to override that human responsibility.

No, it does not override it, it merely points out its consequences: because of the Fall, we need God to help us merely to return to Him.

[JGL57]

No, it does not override it, it merely points out its consequences: because of the Fall, we need God to help us merely to return to Him.

Your statement seems to indicate that you take this mythic narrative as literal and historical fact. Such seems to me to be totally unwarrented. For what possible reason would you do so?

[Redzeppelin]

Your statement seems to indicate that you take this mythic narrative as literal and historical fact. Such seems to me to be totally unwarrented. For what possible reason would you do so?

Because it's true? Because believing so provides the most convincing answer to why humans are the way they are and the solution to the problem of human sin and our complete inability to really change our lives for the better? Why not believe so? Who says this is "mythic"? You? What is your authority for making such a claim? Because you don't have any "proof"?

[Gorilla King]

Your statement seems to indicate that you take this mythic narrative as literal and historical fact. Such seems to me to be totally unwarrented. For what possible reason would you do so?

I hope it won't be terribly out of place for me to say so but I couldn't but help get a good laugh out of your statement. Not out of spite or malice or anything like that, I was just thinking, "of course it seems unwarranted to you! If it seemed otherwise you'd already be a Christian." :lol:

On a more serious note though, to discuss the totality of why one might rationally believe in God would be an enormous undertaking. Thomas Aquinas wrote the 3,000 page Summa Theoogica and still wasn't able to say everything he had to say. However, to bring the matter to a point, it all comes down to Jesus. I have studied various other aspects as well of course, but based on my reading I've come to the conclusion that Jesus was a real person, the gospels recorded real events, and Jesus was who He said He was. I have yet to encounter an argument which stands up against what I've learned. If anyone has one I'd be very interested to hear it so I could research it further if I haven't already. And if I have and relating what I've learned wouldn't take too much time I'd be happy to share that as well and recommend more in depth reading on the subject if I know of any.

[tulysg1982]

we are like fictional characters of a book.our perfection depends on our creators.when a writer write a book his own intellect foreshadows his characters.The writer is concern about the major movement of his character, he never write about how many times his characters drink tea, or sit before computer.When the creator is giving a life to a person his concern leds to what he has planned to do with his characters,how to finish his book.Similarly if we are like that, i think we have our free will in our minor deal in life.But we cannot change our fate whats our creator is planning for us.

[JGL57]

I hope it won't be terribly out of place for me to say so but I couldn't but help get a good laugh out of your statement. Not out of spite or malice or anything like that, I was just thinking, "of course it seems unwarranted to you! If it seemed otherwise you'd already be a Christian." :lol:

On a more serious note though, to discuss the totality of why one might rationally believe in God would be an enormous undertaking. Thomas Aquinas wrote the 3,000 page Summa Theoogica and still wasn't able to say everything he had to say. However, to bring the matter to a point, it all comes down to Jesus. I have studied various other aspects as well of course, but based on my reading I've come to the conclusion that Jesus was a real person, the gospels recorded real events, and Jesus was who He said He was. I have yet to encounter an argument which stands up against what I've learned. If anyone has one I'd be very interested to hear it so I could research it further if I haven't already. And if I have and relating what I've learned wouldn't take too much time I'd be happy to share that as well and recommend more in depth reading on the subject if I know of any.

Coming from the background that I do, and understanding the use of religious language, I feel confident that I understand your position as perfectly as one human can understand another.

Next (rather long and convoluted )question: Having been exposed to the alleged "evidence" of the truth of christian teachings at a baptist church and baptist environs for the first twenty years of my life, with the result that I have now been an atheist for the past thirty years - what possible arguments could you make to me to change my mind at this point that were never made to me over the years by so many christian men and women, including my own parents, who were as dedicated and convinced as you are? - This, especially since they had me, up close and personal, while I was of a pliable and open-minded stage of life?

Answer me that - and win a free trip to paradise, including 72 virgins (or highly trained prostitutes, if that's your preference). :lol:

[Gorilla King]

Coming from the background that I do, and understanding the use of religious language, I feel confident that I understand your position as perfectly as one human can understand another.

Next (rather long and convoluted )question: Having been exposed to the alleged "evidence" of the truth of christian teachings at a baptist church and baptist environs for the first twenty years of my life, with the result that I have now been an atheist for the past thirty years - what possible arguments could you make to me to change my mind at this point that were never made to me over the years by so many christian men and women, including my own parents, who were as dedicated and convinced as you are? - This, especially since they had me, up close and personal, while I was of a pliable and open-minded stage of life?

Answer me that - and win a free trip to paradise, including 72 virgins (or highly trained prostitutes, if that's your preference). :lol:

Well it depends on what they taught you. I mean when I was an atheist and my friends who were Christians tried to convince me with the whole Paley's watchmaker argument I thought it was bogus. Now as a Christian, I still think it's bogus. For me, the most convincing bits of evidence have only just recently come to my attention and every one of them relates to Jesus. Now I can see how some might come to different conclusions about these things and that's certainly their right to do so, but I'm convinced and am becoming increasingly so.

[Bookworm4Him]

{edit}

Regardless of God being outside time etc...omniscience and free will is logical impossibility. As you said - everything is written in a book and just like characters in a novel don't have free will so do we...

what book? Who says we are like characters in a novel? If you are coming from a biblical viewpoint, The Bible says that God KNOWS everything, not that he CHOOSES everything. (If you aren't, disregard this arguement, and continue on with all of yourscientific proof) God created the angels to worship Him, not by choice, but He created man to love Him through choice, for if it is forced, it isn't really love. Therefore we have to have a choice, for that's why we were made.

[weepingforloman]

Coming from the background that I do, and understanding the use of religious language, I feel confident that I understand your position as perfectly as one human can understand another.

Next (rather long and convoluted )question: Having been exposed to the alleged "evidence" of the truth of christian teachings at a baptist church and baptist environs for the first twenty years of my life, with the result that I have now been an atheist for the past thirty years - what possible arguments could you make to me to change my mind at this point that were never made to me over the years by so many christian men and women, including my own parents, who were as dedicated and convinced as you are? - This, especially since they had me, up close and personal, while I was of a pliable and open-minded stage of life?

Answer me that - and win a free trip to paradise, including 72 virgins (or highly trained prostitutes, if that's your preference). :lol:

Nothing said can convince you without the inward conviction that comes from being moved by the Spirit. No one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them.

[JGL57]

Nothing said can convince you without the inward conviction that comes from being moved by the Spirit. No one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them.

It is understood that it is god's failure and not yours. No need to state the obvious.

[NikolaiI]

Isn't that a paradox, though?

I will not be convinced unless God acts to convince me. Yet aren't I supposed to have free will, and choose of my own volition?

I guess you are saying we are convinced by his miracles.

[quasimodo1]

Maybe I rain on your parade, but doesn't this discussion need some connection to literature, no matter how peripheral? Anyway, a friend of mine doesn't believe in free will...he thinks it an anthropromorphic trait. You know, because we are limited as humans...these intrinsic limitations makes you want to believe we have free will. I think we have it and the proof would be any arbitrary decision. Then again the word "decision" is described by Ambrose Bierce as "a preponderence of one set of influences over another". quasimodo1

[Logos]

....doesn't this discussion need some connection to literature, no matter how peripheral?
No, because it was started before the Religious Texts forum rules (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=392231&postcount=3) were changed, only allowing specific text topics.

[quasimodo1]

...standing corrected. quasimodo1

[PrinceMyshkin]

Gorilla King

For me, the most convincing bits of evidence have only just recently come to my attention and every one of them relates to Jesus. Now I can see how some might come to different conclusions about these things and that's certainly their right to do so, but I'm convinced and am becoming increasingly so.

I.e., a stone, once it has begun to roll down hill, will continue to do so, gathering speed. A man, needing to know “the truth,” once he has got hold of what seems to him a piece of the truth will inevitably find more and more evidence of that truth, disregarding all that does not fit.

weepingforloman

Nothing said can convince you without the inward conviction that comes from being moved by the Spirit. No one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them.

This is an example of Begging the question/Circular logic, or Petitio Principii/Circulus in Probando, e.g. No one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God and no one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God and no one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God and no one can be convinced unless God acts to convince them. Therefore my conviction that God exists must be true because it comes from God ad infinitum

[Gorilla King]

Do you see the irony in rolling to your own conclusions of whats true of me while disregarding what doesn't fit? Frankly, I don't think hasty generalizations will do you much good. I dare say that you don't know enough about me and my beliefs or theology in general to adequately assess any of it. It makes you look ignorant at best and foolish at worst.

[Pendragon]

It is understood that it is god's failure and not yours. No need to state the obvious.You lost me here. Are you saying that if man fails to do right, that is because God failed, not man? One thing I have always noticed: Back in the garden, it was God asking "Adam where art thou?" not Adam asking "God, where did you go?"

[Logos]

It would be nice if this could get back on topic, sans personal comments :)

[JGL57]

It would be nice if this could get back on topic, sans personal comments :)

OK. IMO the concept of "will" is, by definition, "free" - saying 'free will' is analogous to saying 'wet water' or 'hot fire'. I.e., if it ain't free, then you are not exercising what we normally define as exercising a "will".

If one thinks "will" cannot be "free" in some instances, then what, in theory, is enslaving it - material determinism? - god? How so? Explain the mechanisms involved. If you can't then you are just giving an imaginative opinion based on nothing but some experienced feeling or intuition - not worth a bucket of warm spit.

Now, to continue - Do I think I make choices completely sans the influence of literally existing invisible or transcendent entities (or a single entity) that could theoretically influence or direct my will in any way? You betcha.

Do I think the exercise of my will is just a natural part of a natural universe, and not itself a trans-natural phenomenon like an ill-defined non-scientific "soul" or something? You betcha.

From the largest perspective (the entire known universe) does it seem to me that the exercise of my will and the will of ALL humans, extant and deceased, apparently play no significant part in the evolution of the universe, i.e., that the evidence for such is utterly lacking? You betcha.

Furthermore, can a person will him or herself to will? I don't think so. E.g., I certainly can will to eat a piece of fried calf' liver - and do so? But if I just happen to HATE the taste of liver, can I will myself to will to LIKE the taste of calf liver, i.e., enjoy the experience? No, I don't think so. Sure, an outside influencing will, such as that of a (human) hypnotist or an alleged supernatural entity, could cause me to THINK I like liver - but then I would have no free will. When no other mind has power over my mind, then I am free. But such freedom doesn't all me to will to will (i.e., to change my will through the power of my own will). If it did, we would get into infinite regress - and no one wants that.

Further examples of how we do not will to will:

1. I can will myself to engage in a homosexual sex act, but I cannot will myself to like it (enjoying it happens or it doesn't - it's not susceptible to my will).

2. Can I will myself to believe in that two plus two is four, or that the Atlantic Ocean is wider than the Pacific? No. I cannot escape the obvious.

3. Can I will myself to believe in an invisible person who zapped the universe into existence through either sheer thought or the spoken word or some sort of magic that is incomprehensible to me? No. I cannot will beliefs into existence in my brain, if my brain thinks they are stupid, anymore than I can, conversely, just will many obvious facts away, e.g., our extant president is not particularly intelligent.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Do you see the irony in rolling to your own conclusions of whats true of me while disregarding what doesn't fit? Frankly, I don't think hasty generalizations will do you much good. I dare say that you don't know enough about me and my beliefs or theology in general to adequately assess any of it. It makes you look ignorant at best and foolish at worst.

I was meaning to talk about the psychology of belief, especially when it reaches to conviction, not the content of your or other's beliefs. And I quite agree with logos that referring to me ad hominem as "ignorant at best and foolish at worst" doesn't much advance the discussion.

[quasimodo1]

To PrinceMyshkin: Can any of the debaters here let me know if anyone has budged an iota from their original viewpoint? This problem always arises when religion is brought into the discussion, i.e. some people are invested while others are more open. quasimodo1

[PrinceMyshkin]

To PrinceMyshkin: Can any of the debaters here let me know if anyone has budged an iota from their original viewpoint? This problem always arises when religion is brought into the discussion, i.e. some people are invested while others are more open. quasimodo1

I have two confessions to make: 1) I haven't followed this thread point by point because it seems moot and academic to me: that is, my behaviour is not going to change one whit by virtue of whether it is proved (if it can be) one way or the other whether I or any one else has pefect free will. I am going to go on behaving as if I do have free will (is there any point to doing otherwise?) and therefore am responsible for the consequences of my action, and

2) Re the more overtly religious threads, I admit to being invested in the belief that a) the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven; b) more importantly, that if there is a God we are likely to be in deeper trouble than otherwise appears to be the case because 'His' ministry is either slipshod or malign.

As to those who are genuinely open to being changed from either the God or no-God point of view, I'd be most intrigued to have them identify themselves and to tell how their positions have changed. How they have changed, that is, by virtue of the debates here rather than by some epiphany, the subjectivity of which is always open to psychological examination.

[weepingforloman]

Don't blame God for the mess we're in, if you ever choose to believe in God.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Don't blame God for the mess we're in, if you ever choose to believe in God.

In the first place, no choice is likely to be involved. 'God" will have manifested Himself to me in such a way that I woin't be able to do other than believe,

But if indeed I am ever persuaded to believe in God, how would I credit Him for that which is good about life without blaming Him for that which is tragic?

If you are going to tell me that all that is good comes from God and all that is evil from man, then you are asking me not to believe in God but in his prophets/interpreters/priests &c. who would be there to point out for me what comes from God and what has other origins.

[weepingforloman]

Blame the people who make the decisions that cause pain, blame me, blame yourself, blame everybody... But appreciate the good done by man, too, since you won't be persuaded that God provides all good.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Blame the people who make the decisions that cause pain, blame me, blame yourself, blame everybody... But appreciate the good done by man, too, since you won't be persuaded that God provides all good.


Did God not make us in His own image? And if that is so, does it not apply to what is essentially Godlike, His soul? His moral nature?

In which case as surely as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Mandela were God so too were Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Hitler, Pol Pot, Hussein et al.

[Gorilla King]

Did God not make us in His own image? And if that is so, does it not apply to what is essentially Godlike, His soul? His moral nature?

In which case as surely as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Mandela were God so too were Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Hitler, Pol Pot, Hussein et al.

Christianity isn't pantheism. What does it mean to be God? It's the greatest possible manifestation of all things. Every person you listed save for Jesus sinned. Therefore, none of them could be the greatest possible manifestation of all things and hence were not by any stretch of the imagination God. It's a straw man argument essentially. It would work well if you were arguing against Buddhism or Hinduism, but it's irrelevant in terms of Christianity, and Judaism. I'm on the fence about it's relevance to Islam, but only because by his nature, Allah could not be the greatest possible being and hence could not be God.

[weepingforloman]

Did God not make us in His own image? And if that is so, does it not apply to what is essentially Godlike, His soul? His moral nature?

In which case as surely as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Mandela were God so too were Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Hitler, Pol Pot, Hussein et al.

We are made in His image, yes, but a little thing called the Fall of Man ruined that. Too many people come at me with arguments like this, but most haven't read Genesis Ch. 3.

[PrinceMyshkin]

We are made in His image, yes, but a little thing called the Fall of Man ruined that. Too many people come at me with arguments like this, but most haven't read Genesis Ch. 3.

Is this

22 Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever."

what you mean? Because other than that God now denies us the prospect of eating of the tree of life, it appears to reinforce the idea that we are like unto God (and vice versa).

[PrinceMyshkin]

Christianity isn't pantheism. What does it mean to be God? It's the greatest possible manifestation of all things. Every person you listed save for Jesus sinned. Therefore, none of them could be the greatest possible manifestation of all things and hence were not by any stretch of the imagination God. It's a straw man argument essentially. It would work well if you were arguing against Buddhism or Hinduism, but it's irrelevant in terms of Christianity, and Judaism. I'm on the fence about it's relevance to Islam, but only because by his nature, Allah could not be the greatest possible being and hence could not be God.


The question I asked is based on the scriptural assertion that we are made in the image of God. I don't see how the above is an answer to that.

[Gorilla King]

The question I asked is based on the scriptural assertion that we are made in the image of God. I don't see how the above is an answer to that.

Well if you don't understand what it means to be made in the image of God then it's meaningless to respond to anything beyond that. Unless we clarify our terms, the whole thing can just as easily be a bait and switch. So, what do you mean when you say a person is created in the image of God? And moreover, when you say God, what do you mean by that?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well if you don't understand what it means to be made in the image of God then it's meaningless to respond to anything beyond that. Unless we clarify our terms, the whole thing can just as easily be a bait and switch. So, what do you mean when you say a person is created in the image of God? And moreover, when you say God, what do you mean by that?

On what basis do you concude that I don't understand what it means to be made in the image of God? That is the most basic of non-responsive responses, i.e., "If you don't understand what I mean, then I can't explain it to you."

I see the entire argument put up by believers as cantilivered upon something that is cantilivered upon something that is cantilivered upon.... an infinite regression based on a book which is taken (on what evidence?) to be the word of God, sanctified by countless generations of fallible human beings, divided over time by sects each of whom claims to have a truer version of the truth than the other truth-holders...

For those who love to argue (as I do up to a point), to spin words and split hairs, what richer field than that of eschatology? "Up to a point," I said, but I have reached that point. I am unsubscribing to this thread and will not be following it any more.

[kilted exile]

Come on Mysh the phrase "in the image of" is simple. I can build a matchstick model in the image of the eiffel tower, this does not mean it is the eiffel tower. The same principle works in Christian ideology.

[Gorilla King]

Come on Mysh the phrase "in the image of" is simple. I can build a matchstick model in the image of the eiffel tower, this does not mean it is the eiffel tower. The same principle works in Christian ideology.

Excellent illustration KE.

[weepingforloman]

Is this

22 Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever."

what you mean? Because other than that God now denies us the prospect of eating of the tree of life, it appears to reinforce the idea that we are like unto God (and vice versa).

I meant that Gen. 3 is the story of the Fall. It is the first instance of sin in scripture. We are like unto God, and therefore, since we are fallen, we are worse than, say, a fallen dog. I refer you to C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, or The Great Divorce.

[Pendragon]

II Timothy Chapter 3:7: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

[Gorilla King]

II Timothy Chapter 3:7: "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

I'd forgotten that one. Thanks Pen.

[PrinceMyshkin]

“God is merely the answer that you get if you do not ask enough questions.” “Why do they hate Him?” by Anthony Gottlieb, The New Yorker, May 21, 2007, paraphrasing David Hume.

[Gorilla King]

From the same article:

"when Terry Eagleton, a British critic who has been a professor of English at Oxford, lambasted Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” in the London Review of Books, he wrote that “card-carrying rationalists” like Dawkins “invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince.”


This is true. What's more, I just so happen to be a theology student. Thank you for making me wince.

[JGL57]

From the same article:

"when Terry Eagleton, a British critic who has been a professor of English at Oxford, lambasted Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” in the London Review of Books, he wrote that “card-carrying rationalists” like Dawkins “invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince.”


This is true. What's more, I just so happen to be a theology student. Thank you for making me wince.

G.K., I don't think Dawkins in his infamous best-selling book is particularly concerned with addressing the "arguments" of those "christians" and other nominal religionists who constitute the ivory-tower academics, professional charlatans, or the large per cent of "christians" and other religionists who are so liberal and so non-literal that they pose no threat to anyone.

Dawkins is instead addressing the problem of christians and similar religionists who take the mythos seriously and are proselytizers and promoters of theocracy. There is no caricature needed. These very common type of christian caricature themselves every day, so no help is needed from Dawkins.

The same goes for Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens in their respective infamous best-selling books. If you actually read all three of their books, you would see, contrary to the reviews of asses like the one you quoted, that all three say nice things about people who are not political and who use poetic language to describe their personal experiences and feelings of awe and wonder at the mystery of life and existence, e.g., the nice things Dawkins says about the Spinoza’s god and Einstein's "cosmic religious feelings", Hitchens similar comments concerning agnosticism regarding the mystery of existence, and Harris giving the Buddhists and other Eastern Wisdom Traditions their due, regarding the reality of meditation and it's potential to produce a beneficial transformation of consciousness (whether his interpretation of such is pantheistic or merely psychological is unclear to me, but I that issue is trivial).

This idea that certain columnists and others are spreading - that Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are all just reincarnated Madalyn Murry O'Hairs, but with penises - is a load.

But believe what you will, G.K. I want you to be happy.

[weepingforloman]

As one of those "proselytizing theocracy-advocates who take their mythos seriously," I would like to say that we don't particularly care what Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. have to say about us, except as far as it goes to influence those who are as yet undecided.

[JGL57]

I would be surprised to hear you say differently.

Obviously those of your ilk will not be affected in the least, and present out-of-the-closet atheists are the choir, so to speak, that requires no further preaching.

Dawkins, et. al., during Q. & A at recent various debates and talks, have all expressed the fact that their target audience is the agnostic and the mildly religious, in an attempt to convince them that "atheism" is not necessarily the kiss of death, and that the time has come now, esp. after the events of 9/11, to take a stand against rampant theocratic mentality - before it becomes too late for those of us who think secular government is best, for one and all.

[PrinceMyshkin]

As one of those "proselytizing theocracy-advocates who take their mythos seriously," I would like to say that we don't particularly care what Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. have to say about us, except as far as it goes to influence those who are as yet undecided.


1 Corinthians 1: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is Patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Emphasis added. On the other hand, there is always "Sauve qui peut" or "I'm all right, Jack."

[PrinceMyshkin]

From the same article:

"when Terry Eagleton, a British critic who has been a professor of English at Oxford, lambasted Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” in the London Review of Books, he wrote that “card-carrying rationalists” like Dawkins “invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince.”


This is true. What's more, I just so happen to be a theology student. Thank you for making me wince.

Are you perhaps majoring in Sneering or Sarcasm 101?

[weepingforloman]

I would be surprised to hear you say differently.

Obviously those of your ilk will not be affected in the least, and present out-of-the-closet atheists are the choir, so to speak, that requires no further preaching.

Dawkins, et. al., during Q. & A at recent various debates and talks, have all expressed the fact that their target audience is the agnostic and the mildly religious, in an attempt to convince them that "atheism" is not necessarily the kiss of death, and that the time has come now, esp. after the events of 9/11, to take a stand against rampant theocratic mentality - before it becomes too late for those of us who think secular government is best, for one and all.

The events of 9-11 are the result of religion gone bad, not religion practiced correctly. Even Islam, an honor/shame religion (which tend to be somewhat less opposed to violence), firmly rejects the actions of the radical Jihadists. How much more so does Christianity reject violence? "Do not resist an evil person," "If a man strikes you on one cheek, I say to you to offer the other to him as well," etc.


1 Corinthians 1: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is Patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Emphasis added. On the other hand, there is always "Sauve qui peut" or "I'm all right, Jack."

Love is, of course, the center of Christian morality. But there is still place for intellect. I'm not quite sure how you intended to connect this to my comment on Dawkins, Hitchens, and their brethren.

[NikolaiI]

1 Corinthians 1: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is Patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Emphasis added. On the other hand, there is always "Sauve qui peut" or "I'm all right, Jack."

That was a wonderful post, Myshkin. :D Thank you for sharing.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Love is, of course, the center of Christian morality. But there is still place for intellect. I'm not quite sure how you intended to connect this to my comment on Dawkins, Hitchens, and their brethren.

It was intended as a response to your: "As one of those "proselytizing theocracy-advocates who take their mythos seriously," I would like to say that we don't particularly care what Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. have to say about us, except as far as it goes to influence those who are as yet undecided."

I equate caring with love - or at least respect.

[weepingforloman]

Ah, I meant that we do not have to overly concern ourselves with their OPINION. The men themselves are of great importance, just as every man is. If a man is redeemed, well, the Bible calls him a god (literally, I just can't remember the passage). If he is not, then he becomes a being corrupted and miserable beyond our current comprehension.

[Pendragon]

Ah, I meant that we do not have to overly concern ourselves with their OPINION. The men themselves are of great importance, just as every man is. If a man is redeemed, well, the Bible calls him a god (literally, I just can't remember the passage). If he is not, then he becomes a being corrupted and miserable beyond our current comprehension.I am wondering about that. Romas 12-14. This warns one not to think of himself as better than he really might be, and to prefer (give honor) to one another. It also speaks of "doubtful disputations", further clairfied as agruments over what one may or may not do. And it says not to judge each other. If one is happy with the way he is, and believes himself or herself OK with God, leave that person alone, don't try to make them conform to your vision. And you, if you are happy and feel that you please God, don't change because someone else isn't totally pleased.

I think we should face fact: We are not going to please everyone. Aseop's parable of the Man with the donkey who ends up losing all by trying to please everybody. But we do not have to fight. We can learn from even the smallest thing there is, if we are willing to watch or listen without pre-judgement that it has nothing to share.

A mole makes great tunnels. Man learned a lot from those little guys. Think about it,

God bless.

Pen.

[weepingforloman]

I don't mean to sound arrogant, and I apologize if I do. I mean only to say that I need not care what others say, after all, "sticks and stones...". I believe it is a mistake to leave people who are complacent with regards to their position with God alone. I believe Christianity is right (if not, I would not be a Christian), and I want anyone who can to come to Christ. As Paul said, "Though I am free, and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, TO WIN AS MANY AS POSSIBLE." The capitals are, of course, mine alone.

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

1 Kings 7:23

[weepingforloman]

"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it." What did you want to say?

[JGL57]

"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it." What did you want to say?

Was that inner rim to inner rim or outer rim to outer rim? The rim would have a certain thickness and that would make a difference.

[kilted exile]

I believe it is a mistake to leave people who are complacent with regards to their position with God alone. I believe Christianity is right (if not, I would not be a Christian), and I want anyone who can to come to Christ. As Paul said, "Though I am free, and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, TO WIN AS MANY AS POSSIBLE." The capitals are, of course, mine alone.

Ok you are now going to have to clarify this in regards to other posts you have made:

On one hand you have numerously stated that God chooses who he wants to save, and it is through the wil/direct act of God that individuals become christian.

If this is the case, what does it matter if agnostics hear Dawkins et al or the views of christians? If God wants to save these people he will if he doesnt he wont right?

[JGL57]

...The events of 9-11 are the result of religion gone bad, not religion practiced correctly...

That and how "religion" is properly defined in context is what we are discussing/debating.


...Even Islam, an honor/shame religion (which tend to be somewhat less opposed to violence), firmly rejects the actions of the radical Jihadists. How much more so does Christianity reject violence? "Do not resist an evil person," "If a man strikes you on one cheek, I say to you to offer the other to him as well," etc...

Again, the question of the "true" interpretation of "holy” scripture is the dividing line - that and which "holy" scripture is the real deal, as opposed to all the others, which are apparently fake, or somehow fall short of the mark. I.e., the world's most literal and pious are 99.99 per cent atheist since they reject all of the world's thousands of religion as myth, but accept as "real" the one they learned from their parents or other significant human authorities in their particular society/culture. Atheists are those who go the one needed step further.

Here's the deal - Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins main point is that, e.g., the christian bible and the Islamic Quran are both, for all practical purposes, Rorschach Tests that one can easily interpret in various ways, focus on certain passages, interpret the language as literal or figurative, etc.

It is the belief that divine absolute authority's desires are revealed in "holy" scripture that is the underlying problem. From this comes the 9/11 goofballs, etc.

So that is "bad" religion, sure, but what is good religion. It is what Hitchens, et. al. referred to in their infamous books - though they eschew the word "religion" because of its historical baggage and connection in most people's minds with the aforementioned Rorschach tests.

[weepingforloman]

Ok you are now going to have to clarify this in regards to other posts you have made:

On one hand you have numerously stated that God chooses who he wants to save, and it is through the wil/direct act of God that individuals become christian.

If this is the case, what does it matter if agnostics hear Dawkins et al or the views of christians? If God wants to save these people he will if he doesnt he wont right?

This is, perhaps, the most asked question of Calvinists, beyond "Who the hell do you think you are?" God does not necessarily reach out and touch somebody, and then they suddenly go, "Oh, wow! This is what I should be doing!" That's not His usual means. We are the Body of Christ-- we can literally be the physical instruments of His will. So, we bring the gospel before people because we cannot be sure that they are not meant to hear it from us.

[kilted exile]

This is, perhaps, the most asked question of Calvinists, beyond "Who the hell do you think you are?" God does not necessarily reach out and touch somebody, and then they suddenly go, "Oh, wow! This is what I should be doing!" That's not His usual means. We are the Body of Christ-- we can literally be the physical instruments of His will. So, we bring the gospel before people because we cannot be sure that they are not meant to hear it from us.

Yes, but if this is the case then surely it doesnt matter what people have heard previously from the likes of Dawkins. If there is a god and he has planned for them to be saved could the writings of mortals like Dawkins really provide an insurrmountable obstacle to god revealing himself?

[JGL57]

I don't mean to sound arrogant, and I apologize if I do. I mean only to say that I need not care what others say, after all, "sticks and stones...". I believe it is a mistake to leave people who are complacent with regards to their position with God alone. I believe Christianity is right (if not, I would not be a Christian), and I want anyone who can to come to Christ. As Paul said, "Though I am free, and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, TO WIN AS MANY AS POSSIBLE." The capitals are, of course, mine alone.

Exactly. And, BTW, you do sound arrogant.

I, for one, freely admit that I am a simple human, doing the best I can, trying to learn as much as humanly possible about the perceived "important" issues of life. My part in any debate is understood to be my personal view, which is always subject to question, and comes with no guarantee of certain truth. I can envision a future scenario in which I come to a greater and largely different understanding of issues of which I presently have a particular "beyond all reasonable doubt" understanding. I try to avoid the hubris of finitude in my understanding and keep (at least in the back of my mind) an attitude of humbleness - a conviction that learning does not stop until death. It would be nice for a human to have a source of perfect truth to go to and receive perfect knowledge of all that is important, but I see no evidence of that at all - such an idea's allegorical equivalent would be a flying pig - that can talk. Lol.

But the religiously pious KNOW the TRUTH, or so they are convinced. They are generally further convinced that they are under a mandate from the Divine Source of All to proselytize this TRUTH to all and sundry humans on the face of the earth. That is their "divine" mission.

They has gots the Spirit of de Lawd in'um, and there is nothing more to do but truck on in the well-defined groove that the Lawd has laid out. They can only pity those that will not listen to their divine truth. They take the time to preach, but if others willfully will not listen, then that is that - ultimate eternal separation from the divine if their fate. They had their free will choice - and blew it.

It seems to me that weeping is in the latter category. If so, that is kind of sad, but hope springs eternal, especially for one in the flowering of his youth - you're 16, right weeping?


I am wondering about that. Romans 12-14. This warns one not to think of himself as better than he really might be, and to prefer (give honor) to one another. It also speaks of "doubtful disputations", further clarified as arguments over what one may or may not do. And it says not to judge each other. If one is happy with the way he is, and believes himself or herself OK with God, leave that person alone, don't try to make them conform to your vision. And you, if you are happy and feel that you please God, don't change because someone else isn't totally pleased.

I think we should face fact: We are not going to please everyone. Aesop’s parable of the Man with the donkey who ends up losing all by trying to please everybody. But we do not have to fight. We can learn from even the smallest thing there is, if we are willing to watch or listen without pre-judgment that it has nothing to share.

A mole makes great tunnels. Man learned a lot from those little guys. Think about it,

God bless.

Pen.

I cannot disagree. And yet, intellectual engagement happens, like the proverbial sh*t.

:D

[weepingforloman]

Again, the question of the "true" interpretation of "holy” scripture is the dividing line - that and which "holy" scripture is the real deal, as opposed to all the others, which are apparently fake, or somehow fall short of the mark. I.e., the world's most literal and pious are 99.99 per cent atheist since they reject all of the world's thousands of religion as myth, but accept as "real" the one they learned from their parents or other significant human authorities in their particular society/culture. Atheists are those who go the one needed step further.

Here's the deal - Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins main point is that, e.g., the christian bible and the Islamic Quran are both, for all practical purposes, Rorschach Tests that one can easily interpret in various ways, focus on certain passages, interpret the language as literal or figurative, etc.

It is the belief that divine absolute authority's desires are revealed in "holy" scripture that is the underlying problem. From this comes the 9/11 goofballs, etc.

So that is "bad" religion, sure, but what is good religion. It is what Hitchens, et. al. referred to in their infamous books - though they eschew the word "religion" because of its historical baggage and connection in most people's minds with the aforementioned Rorschach tests.

Putting aside the specific case of 9-11, I will refer to the most commonly known "Christian" hate groups: the KKK. Their entire theory of "God wants blacks to be inferior" is derived from a story: the Cursing of Ham (that's the son of Noah, not the meat... which is quite delicious, really). Ham walks in on Noah in a drunken stupor, naked and passed out (I bet you're familiar with this, but some might not be). He goes out and talks about it, and Noah finds out and gets angry. He curses Ham's son, Canaan. Now, the Canaanites are believed to be either Caucasian or Asian, based on depictions of them found in Egypt. However, the KKK and similar groups claim that either Canaan or Ham (I forget which one) is derived from a word meaning "burnt black." Therefore, they say, all "dark races" are under the condemnation of God. I think you'd agree that's a pretty slim straw to grasp at. Compared to statements made by Christ, and Paul's declaration that "There is no slave nor free, nor Jew nor Gentile, nor Scythian nor barbarian, nor male nor female," I'd say that the KKK and their brothers are pretty far off from Gospel message.


Exactly. And, BTW, you do sound arrogant.
I apologize. I really don't mean to. It's a shortcoming of mine, and I hope it doesn't cause you to think of all Christians as arrogant. Of course, from what I know of you, I doubt you will.


I, for one, freely admit that I am a simple human, doing the best I can, trying to learn as much as humanly possible about the perceived "important" issues of life. My part in any debate is understood to be my personal view, which is always subject to question, and comes with no guarantee of certain truth. I can envision a future scenario in which I come to a greater and different understanding of issues of which I presently have a particular "beyond all reasonable doubt" understanding. I try to avoid the hubris of finitude in my understanding and keep (at least in the back of my mind) an attitude of humbleness - a conviction that learning does not stop until death.

But the religiously pious KNOW the TRUTH, or so they are convinced. They are generally further convinced that they are under a mandate from the Divine Source of All to proselytize this TRUTH to all and sundry humans on the face of the earth. That is their "divine" mission.

They has gots the Spirit of de Lawd in'um, and there is nothing more to do but truck on in the well-defined groove that the Lawd has laid out. They can only pity those that will not listen to their divine truth. They take the time to preach, but if others willfully will not listen, then that is that - ultimate eternal separation from the divine if their fate. They had their free will choice - and blew it.

It seems to me that weeping is in the latter category. If so, that is kind of sad, but hope springs eternal, especially for one in the flowering of his youth - you're 16, right weeping?

I am 16, as far as that goes. Thanks for that typed imitation of a Southern accent. Made me laugh. Obviously I do not deny that atrocities have been committed under the heading of "Missionary Work." However, we first of all have indeed been commanded to preach to the nations (the Great Commission). And we do not (or should not) preach out of spiritual arrogance, but out of sincere desire to bring what we believe is true and beautiful and good to others. If we reduce it to the most basic terms, what would you think of Edison if he had told no one that he had harnessed electricity? This scenario is brought to you courtesy of Family Guy.

[JGL57]

Putting aside the specific case of 9-11, I will refer to the most commonly known "Christian" hate groups: the KKK. Their entire theory of "God wants blacks to be inferior" is derived from a story: the Cursing of Ham (that's the son of Noah, not the meat... which is quite delicious, really). Ham walks in on Noah in a drunken stupor, naked and passed out (I bet you're familiar with this, but some might not be). He goes out and talks about it, and Noah finds out and gets angry. He curses Ham's son, Canaan. Now, the Canaanites are believed to be either Caucasian or Asian, based on depictions of them found in Egypt. However, the KKK and similar groups claim that either Canaan or Ham (I forget which one) is derived from a word meaning "burnt black." Therefore, they say, all "dark races" are under the condemnation of God. I think you'd agree that's a pretty slim straw to grasp at. Compared to statements made by Christ, and Paul's declaration that "There is no slave nor free, nor Jew nor Gentile, nor Scythian nor barbarian, nor male nor female," I'd say that the KKK and their brothers are pretty far off from Gospel message.

But you unknowingly continue to prove my point, my friend.

IF no one was ever taught that the bible was the Divine Perfect Word of an Omniscient Invisible Person - or God - then we could have discussions of what ideals or understandings of the human experience the writers of the bible stories meant to convey or didn't mean to convey. IOW, we could have an invigorating critique of the bible as literature, just as we do of Moby Dick or the writings of Kafka or Sartre - or whatever.

It is the concept of divine origin of the bible that gives people like the KKK the idea that they are merely following the orders of an omniscient being who has spoken to them. If they only had science to fall back on, from the get go, they might have had a much rougher go to win converts - but most everyone wants to follow the teachings of the Lord (except a few reprobates such as myself). THAT is the continuing problem. E.g., what possible incentive could the "Islamo-fascist" leaders give to the goofs who immolate themselves if they had no pleasant afterlife with the virgins to offer?

They might still convince some, but it would be tough. One has to appeal to a god, in the flesh (emperor of Japan, the god of N. Korea, the ancient Pharaohs, etc.) to get people in large number to do really stupid things. Even in communism, it was inculcated in people that Marx was a god who stated the truth of dialectical materialism once and for all, just believe and do your duty. IOW, it is fanaticism, religious or secular, that is the problem - but an appeal to some divine truth seems to be the perennial problem - i.e., religion in the bad sense of the word - organized religion, group-belief religion, commitment to the divine creed religion.

Some dude having a Satori experience in the privacy of his home and otherwise just following the Golden Rule in his societal activities - that is not the problem of religious belief. That is "good" religion, if you will. But that is not what Dawkins et. al. are opposing so vociferously.

You show me wherein Dawkins, et. al. are opposing something good, and promoting something definitively bad, and I will join you in opposition to them.

[weepingforloman]

My point was that groups that are committed to hate will, naturally, be able to take some small point that is not even part of the narrative of the Bible, merely a word-trick, and generalize it beyond reason into a defense of their own bigotry. If we accept what the Bible teaches at face-value, we can have no talk of hating one another.

BTW, I would say that if Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. argue against God, then they are arguing against the very source of goodness.

Grace and Peace,
weepingforloman


Yes, but if this is the case then surely it doesnt matter what people have heard previously from the likes of Dawkins. If there is a god and he has planned for them to be saved could the writings of mortals like Dawkins really provide an insurrmountable obstacle to god revealing himself?

Of course not. But God may choose to use a human to overcome obstacles established by Dawkins, etc. and bring someone to him in that way.

[JGL57]

I apologize. I really don't mean to. It's a shortcoming of mine, and I hope it doesn't cause you to think of all Christians as arrogant. Of course, from what I know of you, I doubt you will...

You forget that I am 58. I can only imagine that I have had dealing with far more christians than you have.

Some people who go by that name are very nice people. Many are not. I generally use the opposing adjectives “liberal” and “pious” to distinguish the former from the latter.
As an analogy, I’ve had little personal contact with Muslims. I am told that the vast majority of them are as horrified as I was by the events of 9/11. I have no reason to doubt that fact – and I accept it.


… If we reduce it to the most basic terms, what would you think of Edison if he had told no one that he had harnessed electricity? This scenario is brought to you courtesy of Family Guy.

Firstly, the Family Guy is amusing, as is The Simpsons and many of the other cartoons on Adult Swim and the Cartoon Channel , but I prefer South Park on Comedy Channel.

Secondly, I think the whole point of Edison’s setting up his elaborate systems of labs and people was to discover new technology that would be helpful to humans. IOW, he was an altruistic guy – so I would have been surprised if he had keep any of his discoveries forever under his hat.

So, certainly, there is no question that Edison meant well. As a human being, I am sure he enjoyed the money and fame too – but I envision those things not to be his primary motivations. I see him as sort of a secular saint. (You know he was also an “infidel”, right?)

So – comparing Edison to you – hmmmm. I’m failing to see the good analogy. Everyone means well and is equally sincere, from me to you to Edison to Jerry Falwell to the Dali Lama to whatever part of Hitler’s brain wasn’t certifiably psychotic. So that is not the issue.

So what could the definitive difference be between people – who all speak what they believe to be the truth?

I think we are back to the arrogance of believing one speaks for Almighty God. Ah, yes, that’s it – overweening hubris, egomania, narcissistic personality disorder, hearing voices, believing your group-think is right because it is your group and your group MUST be right because it is your group – and continuing this strange loop of conscious thought until risk of stroke eventuates. Yeah – something like all that.

[weepingforloman]

South Park is good.

The Edison analogy was meant to communicate that we believe we are offering something that is invaluable to people.

Do you really believe that all people mean well at all times? I just don't think so. If you're out for revenge (a la the Columbine shooters) I just don't see how you could possibly think you were doing good.

Thanks for the compliments.

[JGL57]

My point was that groups that are committed to hate will, naturally, be able to take some small point that is not even part of the narrative of the Bible, merely a word-trick, and generalize it beyond reason into a defense of their own bigotry. If we accept what the Bible teaches at face-value, we can have no talk of hating one another...

But that is the whole argument - what the bible really teaches at face value. I.e., some are convinced that the bible really teaches total pacifism and would NEVER, under ANY circumstances whatsoever, kill another human, even in the defense of others. These folks will be GLAD to quotes you verse after verse - showing the bible at face value teaches us all this indisputable truth - coming directly from the Lord.

OTOH - most christians disagree. President - and devout Southern Baptist - Truman, in WWII, decided that giving the order to drop atomic bombs on cities - mainly inhabited by women, women pregnant with human feti, babies, young children, and old men too old to fight - was doing his duty as a citizen and political leader, and he saw that his actions did not disqualify him as a christian, or the action itself qualify as a sin, which he must repeat of in order to accept Jesus, etc.

Millions of extant christians - or Truman, if he were still alive - can and would quote us all scripture backing up the acceptability of Truman's actions. Most of the quotes would, of necessity, come from the O.T. - but last time I checked orthodox christians accept the OT as just as much a part of the canon as the N.T.


BTW, I would say that if Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. argue against God, then they are arguing against the very source of goodness...

[weepingforloman]

But that is the whole argument - what the bible really teaches at face value. I.e., some are convinced that the bible really teaches total pacifism and would NEVER, under ANY circumstances whatsoever, kill another human, even in the defense of others. These folks will be GLAD to quotes you verse after verse - showing the bible at face value teaches us all this indisputable truth - coming directly from the Lord.

OTOH - most christians disagree. President - and devout Southern Baptist - Truman, in WWII, decided that giving the order to drop atomic bombs on cities - mainly inhabited by women, women pregnant with human feti, babies, young children, and old men too old to fight - was doing his duty as a citizen and political leader, and he saw that his actions did not disqualify him as a christian, or the action itself qualify as a sin, which he must repeat of in order to accept Jesus, etc.

Millions of extant christians - or Truman, if he were still alive - can and would quote us all scripture backing up the acceptability of Truman's actions. Most of the quotes would, of necessity, come from the O.T. - but last time I checked orthodox christians accept the OT as just as much a part of the canon as the N.T.

That which is in the OT and is contradicted by the NT is regarded to no longer hold, under the new covenant.

With regards to total pacifism, I refer you to the essay written by C.S. Lewis called "Learning in War Time." It may be a different essay, actually, but I believe that is the right one. Anyway, it is in the book of essays called The Weight of Glory.

[JGL57]

....The Edison analogy was meant to communicate that we believe we are offering something that is invaluable to people...

I assume by "we" you mean you - and Thomas Edison. By "something invaluable to people" I assume you mean - eternal life with Jesus and electricity.

All I can say is to repeat the analogy does not hold. Electricity is objective in that anyone, even an aborigine from the South American jungles can be reliable shown the fact of electricity by any human on earth, be that person atheist, christian, Hindu, muslim, etc.

Putting protestants, catholics and "christian like" cults into different boxes, I would say that, at a minimum, after two thousand years of much bloodshed, including conversation at the point of a sword and screaming arguments, only about 15 per cent of extant people are aware of the "goods" that you have on offer. And I suspect a similar per cent would prevail of previously existing and now dead people. So, christianity is not QUITE as objective a fact as electricity, what? (It can be even more dangerous in many cases, I would agree to that.) :D


....Do you really believe that all people mean well at all times? I just don't think so. If you're out for revenge (a la the Columbine shooters) I just don't see how you could possibly think you were doing good...

I believe that all people at all times BELEIVE that what they do or advocate is objectively true, and that they BELIEVE that they are meaning well, in all cases and at all times. I would include psychotics in this group of "all". I.e., they believe all that pleases them is "good" and other people are not other thems, just objects to be exploited. So, I don't think you can even make the case that psycholics ever objectively view their actions as bad.

[JGL57]

That which is in the OT and is contradicted by the NT is regarded to no longer hold, under the new covenant.

With regards to total pacifism, I refer you to the essay written by C.S. Lewis called "Learning in War Time." It may be a different essay, actually, but I believe that is the right one. Anyway, it is in the book of essays called The Weight of Glory.

You have said nothing here that obviates the fact that there are "christians" and there are "christians" - always has been, apparently always will be. How do I objectively choose? If I were to choose your type, you will judge me as choosing the obvious truth. If I chose to accept the view of another group of "christians" that you judge, but YOUR interpretation of scripture to be wrong-headed, then you will have pity for me and try to lead me into the light - what YOU believe to be the light.

As so it goes.

[weepingforloman]

This is in response to your post before last:

I just happened to read today, in Calvin's Institutes, about an argument made by some Greek philosopher (not one of the Big Three) or other, that went like this: what people condemn in principle (i.e., murder), they forget about when they wish to practice it (a man plotting to kill an enemy regards that death as a good). That still does not mean they are doing good, and is in fact more worrisome to me than the thought that some willfully do wrong.

And yes, Christianity is not as obviously correct as the existence of electricity. And yes, terrible things have been done in its name. Regardless, that does not invalidate the thing itself. Many more wars have arisen out of political/economic issues than religious (at least in the last millennium or so), but that does not invalidate political bodies and economic systems.

[JGL57]

BTW, I await your answer to my post #137, in query to your post #136 (and, please, no rude comments about a "rimjob".) :D

[weepingforloman]

You have said nothing here that obviates the fact that there are "christians" and there are "christians" - always has been, apparently always will be. How do I objectively choose? If I were to choose your type, you will judge me as choosing the obvious truth. If I chose to accept the view of another group of "christians" that you judge, but YOUR interpretation of scripture to be wrong-headed, then you will have pity for me and try to lead me into the light - what YOU believe to be the light.

As so it goes.

"So it goes." R.I.P. Kurt Vonnegut.

But, yes, if you choose to look at it that way, I believe I am right... If I didn't, why would I think at all?

[JGL57]

This is in response to your post before last:

I just happened to read today, in Calvin's Institutes, about an argument made by some Greek philosopher (not one of the Big Three) or other, that went like this: what people condemn in principle (i.e., murder), they forget about when they wish to practice it (a man plotting to kill an enemy regards that death as a good). That still does not mean they are doing good, and is in fact more worrisome to me than the thought that some willfully do wrong.

And yes, Christianity is not as obviously correct as the existence of electricity. And yes, terrible things have been done in its name. Regardless, that does not invalidate the thing itself. Many more wars have arisen out of political/economic issues than religious (at least in the last millennium or so), but that does not invalidate political bodies and economic systems.

Is there an political or economic system, completely with answers to all possible scenarios, that is objectively true?

No.

Is there a religion or religious faith, held singularly or in an organized group, which is objectively true?

As you so graciously admitted - NO.

So far, so good.

Now - should I have utter and unquestioning faith in some political or economic system, i.e., believe it to be the true and correct system - just because adherents of said political/economic system SAY it is true - and BELIEVE it is absolutely true - even if they number in the billions - even if they threaten me dire consequences, in either this world or an alleged one to come?

NO.

Q.E.D.

[Pendragon]

This is, perhaps, the most asked question of Calvinists, beyond "Who the hell do you think you are?" God does not necessarily reach out and touch somebody, and then they suddenly go, "Oh, wow! This is what I should be doing!" That's not His usual means. We are the Body of Christ-- we can literally be the physical instruments of His will. So, we bring the gospel before people because we cannot be sure that they are not meant to hear it from us.A group called Casting Crowns has a song out called "If We Are the Body". Look up the lyrics or listen to the words. Then ask the really hard questions of how to approach people so that you draw them towards you instead of pushing them away. Much about free will has been said. If man has free will (I believe he does), or if not, anyone who ever worked in sales can tell you presentation is most of the work.

That goes for either side of the argument. To present your case with the assumption, (presumption, actually), that you are so correct that the other must be forced to see your side is useless. That is a signal for "Shields, Mr. Sulu!" and a long drawn-out battle.

Instead, present your case with the evidence you have. If others disagree, let them. As for you, friend Weeping, the story of the Watchman in Ezekiel 33 should rest your mind. You present your case, and if others reject it, your hands are clean.

As are the hands of anyone else. You presented your case. Others failed to see it. If you are correct and they are not, who then answers for that, you or them? There is no fight here. Disagree we may, but fight we do not need to at all.

God Bless.

Pen


I cannot disagree. And yet, intellectual engagement happens, like the proverbial sh*t.

:DAnd makes the same sort of mess when it strikes a fan, no?

[JGL57]

"So it goes." R.I.P. Kurt Vonnegut.

But, yes, if you choose to look at it that way, I believe I am right... If I didn't, why would I think at all?


Again, you quote a fellow "unbeliever" to make your point. Have you given up on mining quotes from Aquinas and Augustine, or quoting selected scripture? :D

Obviously we all THINK we are right. Otherwise, we would all THINK something other than what we all think. That seems a tautology.

I think that maybe the problem is that some people THINK their thoughts are filtered through, come from, are informed by, have some real connection to, a divine source of omniscience, and thus the person THINKS that he or she CANNOT be wrong.

And then there's the rest of us. :D

That is the sum total of the Vonnegutian "So it goes.".

{edit}

[Scheherazade]

F I N A L W A R N I N G

Please do not resort to inflammatory comments during discussions.


If you feel you are unable to show respect to those whose opinions are different from yours,

please refrain from posting especially in this section of the Forum.


We are not here to decide who is intellectually, morally or otherwise 'superior'

based on their religious views but to exchange opinions and learn from each other.

[weepingforloman]

Is there an political or economic system, completely with answers to all possible scenarios, that is objectively true?

No.

Is there a religion or religious faith, held singularly or in an organized group, which is objectively true?

As you so graciously admitted - NO.
Ah, but I said obviously true, not objectively true. If I believed in a non-objective God/religion, why would I waste my time discussing it?


So far, so good.

Now - should I have utter and unquestioning faith in some political or economic system, i.e., believe it to be the true and correct system - just because adherents of said political/economic system SAY it is true - and BELIEVE it is absolutely true - even if they number in the billions - even if they threaten me dire consequences, in either this world or an alleged one to come?

NO.

Q.E.D.

I did not mean for the metaphor to continue on that level. I meant only that a thing can cause problems when people react to it, and yet not be wrong or evil in and of itself.


Again, you quote a fellow "unbeliever" to make your point. Have you given up on mining quotes from Aquinas and Augustine, or quoting selected scripture? :D

I don't think I've chosen any esoteric passages, do you? I feel comfortable borrowing from anyone I think is right... Not that I think Vonnegut's "so it goes" is right, or even that he thought that that was a correct response to death. Billy Pilgrim was not Kurt Vonnegut.


Obviously we all THINK we are right. Otherwise, we would all THINK something other than what we all think. That seems a tautology.
Of course. That's why it is a mild annoyance to me when people say, "You always think you're right," to me or anyone else.


I think that maybe the problem is that some people THINK their thoughts are filtered through, come from, are informed by, have some real connection to, a divine source of omniscience, and thus the person THINKS that he or she CANNOT be wrong.

I don't think I am inerrant. In fact, I think I am deeply, extremely flawed... Maybe do a little Google search on "the five points of Calvinism" or "TULIP?"


And then there's the rest of us. :D

That is the sum total of the Vonnegutian "So it goes.".

{edit}

OK.


Was that inner rim to inner rim or outer rim to outer rim? The rim would have a certain thickness and that would make a difference.

I have absolutely no idea. Oh, and by the way, I didn't notice until now that you're from Jackson (or near it). I'm actually going on a missions trip to Jackson, to help out in farms and building low-income housing. Are you familiar with Voice of Calvary?

[Pendragon]

1 Kings 7:23


"He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it." What did you want to say?

You will pardon me, if I use the KJV.

1 Kings 7:23: And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

This is speaking of the dedication of the temple at Jerusalem, and the objects of worship therein. The word translated as "sea" would be "bath". Remember to keep the quote in the context, which the dedication is what this whole chapter details. This great "bath" was for the ritual washing of the priests.

That said, how does this fit into the equation of whether or not there is free will?

Keeping it real. No arguements, just a question.

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[Mr. Dr. Ralph]

You will pardon me, if I use the KJV.

1 Kings 7:23: And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

This is speaking of the dedication of the temple at Jerusalem, and the objects of worship therein. The word translated as "sea" would be "bath". Remember to keep the quote in the context, which the dedication is what this whole chapter details. This great "bath" was for the ritual washing of the priests.

That said, how does this fit into the equation of whether or not there is free will?

Keeping it real. No arguements, just a question.

Pen

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

God keeps it real AND rational! Since when is 10*pi = 30?

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread no longer addresses the OP, it will now be closed