Does Man Have Free Will?

[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.

[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.)

....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.