Does Man Have Free Will?

[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".)

[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.

And 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?

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.

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?

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.

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

[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

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