Does Man Have Free Will?

[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."