Free Will

[Guest end3]

 

 

Free will?  Life is a show and we're all performing from a script.  We just don't know it.

 

If God intervenes in the life of just one person to influence an outcome -  we do not have free will.

 

This is why I don't understand the purpose behind Christians prayers for the "unsaved."

Kind of an interesting statement LC.  Per the Holy Spirit, God surely intervenes.  Been contemplating us as manifestations of God for so long, I can't put myself back in my more fundamental thoughts.  So what is God's will vs. our will/understanding.   

 

Don't beat me up people, I just like to talk.

 

What's the point then if all of this is directed by God and the things that are supposed to make us unique individuals is actually just another manifestation of God's desires?

 

No thanks. I don't want any part of that. There's no love there and there's truly no freedom there. I am me, separate of any supernatural (read mythical) direction. My identity isn't just an extension of a self-centered, divine creator.

 

Yes, but are you cognizant of your lack of free will?  Two things:  One, the older I get, regardless of how hard I try to do the right thing with my "wisdom and knowledge", I still can't control the outcome.  This in my mind leans me towards some potential God plan......I can't help but think that.  With that, without looking for some particular verses, I am thinking the Bible pretty much suggests this anyhow.  So why is it, that when we discover this, that it drives us further the opposite direction.

 

Also, I think I could potentially write a book about humanity and the outcome from different perspectives (larger), and predict their outcome, but also predict the illusion of free will within THEIR perspective.  Again, if I am God and have the larger perspective, why wouldn't I see humanity within a plan but humanity not seeing the plan because of their perspective.

 

<Insert Horton Hears a Who>

[Guest end3]

 

 

   Been contemplating us as manifestations of God for so long, I can't put myself back in my more fundamental thoughts.   

 

 

Wouldn't the very idea that we are all just manifestations of god automatically preclude the notion that any of us had free will?  I mean to say, if we are all simply what god manifests as us, then our choices are merely his choices manifested in and through us.  Or am I misunderstanding your current mode of thinking?

 

 

Yes, it's just a matter of perspective. 

 

We would assume that any creation has a limited number of choices based on their manifestation.  Why wouldn't we understand these as limits of free will based on our system/created configuration.  Basically, humanity, imo would have an operational zone so large/some size to manifest "free will" based on their created entity. 

 

My thought is God could be a larger set of creation and we see ourselves as acting "Godly" when we join this larger set, i.e. a collective conscious or conciousness of all creation or God is actually some Creator entity.

 

Long story short, I'm thinking it issue of perspective gives us the notion of free will. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

   Been contemplating us as manifestations of God for so long, I can't put myself back in my more fundamental thoughts.   

 

 

Wouldn't the very idea that we are all just manifestations of god automatically preclude the notion that any of us had free will?  I mean to say, if we are all simply what god manifests as us, then our choices are merely his choices manifested in and through us.  Or am I misunderstanding your current mode of thinking?

 

 

Yes, it's just a matter of perspective. 

 

We would assume that any creation has a limited number of choices based on their manifestation.  Why wouldn't we understand these as limits of free will based on our system/created configuration.  Basically, humanity, imo would have an operational zone so large/some size to manifest "free will" based on their created entity. 

 

My thought is God could be a larger set of creation and we see ourselves as acting "Godly" when we join this larger set, i.e. a collective conscious or conciousness of all creation or God is actually some Creator entity.

 

Long story short, I'm thinking it issue of perspective gives us the notion of free will. 

 

 

But this could just as easily be explained through evolution without the need of god's manifestation.  Bacteria have few opportunities to make choices simply because their existence doesn't allow for them; monkeys on the other hand get to decide on a daily basis whether they are going to pick lice off of their mates or hurl feces at their enemies.  This is because as life evolved into higher forms, it became necessary to provide said higher forms some means of control over their destinies, if life were to survive in a universe governed, among other things, by the law of causality.  Having the ability to make decisions allows higher life forms to, at least, limit the negative consequences of causality.  But again, going back to the first response I posted on this thread, our choices are merely a reflection of who we are; they needn't be a manifestation of god, nor is there any need for a bigger picture, other than that life will continue to evolve on this planet until this planet ends.

[spiritrider2013]

Wow, I am amazed I have been so indoctrinated . In my mind 'Ive been trained to believe everything leadership has taught me is biblical . You can tell how much work I have to do myself to untangle my mind from the brainwashing. Even though I have left Religeon physically my mind is still fighting for release. I've read the bible, how did this concept of free will slip by me?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

   Been contemplating us as manifestations of God for so long, I can't put myself back in my more fundamental thoughts.   

 

 

Wouldn't the very idea that we are all just manifestations of god automatically preclude the notion that any of us had free will?  I mean to say, if we are all simply what god manifests as us, then our choices are merely his choices manifested in and through us.  Or am I misunderstanding your current mode of thinking?

 

 

Yes, it's just a matter of perspective. 

 

We would assume that any creation has a limited number of choices based on their manifestation.  Why wouldn't we understand these as limits of free will based on our system/created configuration.  Basically, humanity, imo would have an operational zone so large/some size to manifest "free will" based on their created entity. 

 

My thought is God could be a larger set of creation and we see ourselves as acting "Godly" when we join this larger set, i.e. a collective conscious or conciousness of all creation or God is actually some Creator entity.

 

Long story short, I'm thinking it issue of perspective gives us the notion of free will. 

 

 

But this could just as easily be explained through evolution without the need of god's manifestation.  Bacteria have few opportunities to make choices simply because their existence doesn't allow for them; monkeys on the other hand get to decide on a daily basis whether they are going to pick lice off of their mates or hurl feces at their enemies.  This is because as life evolved into higher forms, it became necessary to provide said higher forms some means of control over their destinies, if life were to survive in a universe governed, among other things, by the law of causality.  Having the ability to make decisions allows higher life forms to, at least, limit the negative consequences of causality.  But again, going back to the first response I posted on this thread, our choices are merely a reflection of who we are; they needn't be a manifestation of god, nor is there any need for a bigger picture, other than that life will continue to evolve on this planet until this planet ends.

 

I don't know that just because it is explained in different language that it is any less true....

[bornagainathiest]

Was Seven of Nine (Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One) cognizant of her lack of free will within the Borg collective?

Did she simply have the illusion of free will within the larger perspective of the collective? 

Was she unable to see the whole perspective/greater plan, because she was a tiny part of the greater whole?

Perhaps she had a limited number of choices because she was just a drone - a microscopic unit of the greater collective?

Maybe her operational zone within the collective was just large to permit her the illusion of free will but not the genuine article?

.

.

.

 

Do you see how much more sense your musings make End, if you exchange the word 'God' for the word...  'Borg'?

So there's no need to invoke a supernatural Creator to make your ideas work.  Evolution has already manifested examples of such collectives, right here on Earth.  We call the places where they live...

 

 

 

 

...termite mounds.

 

 

 

 

In these collectives self-awareness is irrelevant and unnecessary.  In fact, it's counter-productive to the continued survival of the whole.  Ditto free will or even the illusion of it.  Ditto higher levels of consciousness.  Ditto conscious awareness of a greater plan or wider perspective.  Not needed.  But... if there were need for self-awareness or if any evolutionary advantage could be gained by the termites evolving self-awareness... then they would have done so by now.  Termites have been around for at least 145 million years.  Entomologists would have seen evidence of self-awareness manifested in their behavior -  if it were there.  But they haven't -  because it isn't.

.

.

.

 

Now, I'd like to compliment you, End.

I think it's great that you're stretching yourself by thinking in news ways, but I'm sorry... this particular line of thinking is a dead-end.  Your ideas don't promote and nourish self-awareness and free will  for the individual -  they destroy them.  Free-willed and self-aware individuals cannot exist within the controlling influence of a greater collective without surrendering their free will to that collective.  It doesn't matter if you call it God or the Borg, the effect is still the same... control.  That's why controlling a drones 'operational zone' or 'number of choices' always equals a loss of their free will.  Even if the drones remain blissfully unaware that their free will is, in fact, an illusion, their freedom to act independently is still violated.  They simply don't know it. 

 

If I'm ignorant of the malfunctioning satellite plunging thru the stratosphere towards my house, that doesn't mean it won't kill me, right?  Likewise, if I'm unaware of the malignant tumor growing stealthily in my pancreas, that doesn't mean that I won't end up like Patrick Swayze, does it?  Ignorance of something doesn't make it go away nor does it make 'real' things stop being real.  Nor does using a "different lanuage" change the truth or untruth of something.  It only disguises it.  "Dos mas dos igual a cinco" is still false, even if I don't type it out in English... Si?

.

.

.

 

Anyway, keep thinking End!

Keep chewing away at these things.

Keep on keeping on.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

 

 

p.s.

Btw, which do you think is God's greater plan for us humans?  A or B?

 

A.

He predetermined our decisions before Creation and we are just puppets, acting out His plan while laboring under the illusion that we've got free will.

 

B.

He really did give us free will (meaning that we really can decide to love Him or not) and He will honor our choices on Judgement Day.

[pawn]

C) there is no God

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

 

   Been contemplating us as manifestations of God for so long, I can't put myself back in my more fundamental thoughts.   

 

 

Wouldn't the very idea that we are all just manifestations of god automatically preclude the notion that any of us had free will?  I mean to say, if we are all simply what god manifests as us, then our choices are merely his choices manifested in and through us.  Or am I misunderstanding your current mode of thinking?

 

 

Yes, it's just a matter of perspective. 

 

We would assume that any creation has a limited number of choices based on their manifestation.  Why wouldn't we understand these as limits of free will based on our system/created configuration.  Basically, humanity, imo would have an operational zone so large/some size to manifest "free will" based on their created entity. 

 

My thought is God could be a larger set of creation and we see ourselves as acting "Godly" when we join this larger set, i.e. a collective conscious or conciousness of all creation or God is actually some Creator entity.

 

Long story short, I'm thinking it issue of perspective gives us the notion of free will. 

 

 

But this could just as easily be explained through evolution without the need of god's manifestation.  Bacteria have few opportunities to make choices simply because their existence doesn't allow for them; monkeys on the other hand get to decide on a daily basis whether they are going to pick lice off of their mates or hurl feces at their enemies.  This is because as life evolved into higher forms, it became necessary to provide said higher forms some means of control over their destinies, if life were to survive in a universe governed, among other things, by the law of causality.  Having the ability to make decisions allows higher life forms to, at least, limit the negative consequences of causality.  But again, going back to the first response I posted on this thread, our choices are merely a reflection of who we are; they needn't be a manifestation of god, nor is there any need for a bigger picture, other than that life will continue to evolve on this planet until this planet ends.

 

I don't know that just because it is explained in different language that it is any less true....

 

 

I'm not explaining it in different language; I'm explaining it without the need for god, god's plan, or a bigger picture.  I'm placing the idea of free will into the naturalistic perspective, which is the only perspective that can be proven to exist.

[bornagainathiest]

C) there is no God

 

Cute... but not helpful, Pawn.

 

Yes, I know C's a valid option but I'm just trying to interact with End in a way that's not combative. After all, he asked us not to beat him up, didn't he?

[slave2six]

...the OT god really didn't give much of a shit about anyone's free will. Suddenly in the NT.. this is a big deal?

 

Most of the NT is a complete 180 degree turnabout from the OT. But even in the NT there is no such thing as free will:

 

Romans 9:20-22

 

Who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

 

No matter how you look at it, the Christian doctrine states clearly that god makes people as they are and that they have no free will. Any claims to the contrary are just wishful thinking or an attempt to make excuses for god.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Been contemplating us as manifestations of God for so long, I can't put myself back in my more fundamental thoughts.   

 

 

Wouldn't the very idea that we are all just manifestations of god automatically preclude the notion that any of us had free will?  I mean to say, if we are all simply what god manifests as us, then our choices are merely his choices manifested in and through us.  Or am I misunderstanding your current mode of thinking?

 

 

Yes, it's just a matter of perspective. 

 

We would assume that any creation has a limited number of choices based on their manifestation.  Why wouldn't we understand these as limits of free will based on our system/created configuration.  Basically, humanity, imo would have an operational zone so large/some size to manifest "free will" based on their created entity. 

 

My thought is God could be a larger set of creation and we see ourselves as acting "Godly" when we join this larger set, i.e. a collective conscious or conciousness of all creation or God is actually some Creator entity.

 

Long story short, I'm thinking it issue of perspective gives us the notion of free will. 

 

 

But this could just as easily be explained through evolution without the need of god's manifestation.  Bacteria have few opportunities to make choices simply because their existence doesn't allow for them; monkeys on the other hand get to decide on a daily basis whether they are going to pick lice off of their mates or hurl feces at their enemies.  This is because as life evolved into higher forms, it became necessary to provide said higher forms some means of control over their destinies, if life were to survive in a universe governed, among other things, by the law of causality.  Having the ability to make decisions allows higher life forms to, at least, limit the negative consequences of causality.  But again, going back to the first response I posted on this thread, our choices are merely a reflection of who we are; they needn't be a manifestation of god, nor is there any need for a bigger picture, other than that life will continue to evolve on this planet until this planet ends.

 

I don't know that just because it is explained in different language that it is any less true....

 

 

I'm not explaining it in different language; I'm explaining it without the need for god, god's plan, or a bigger picture.  I'm placing the idea of free will into the naturalistic perspective, which is the only perspective that can be proven to exist.

 

People here prof. accuse me of stretching my imagination to make the theology fit.  To me, it fits in both perspectives.  I remain a believer because it feels more right regardless of increasing "knowledge".  Thanks for the comments.

[pawn]

 

 

C) there is no God

Cute... but not helpful, Pawn.

 

Yes, I know C's a valid option but I'm just trying to interact with End in a way that's not combative. After all, he asked us not to beat him up, didn't he?

Woah, who is beating anyone up? I am totally cool with End being a believer. I was a believer myself a short while ago. It's fine with be. I am just pointing out the rather obvious third option which makes sense to me, as the two options you listed are illogical to me.

 

But I am content and peaceable allowing End to choose whatever option. Peace.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

People here prof. accuse me of stretching my imagination to make the theology fit.  

 

Imagination and theology do tend to work hand-in-glove.

 

 

 I remain a believer because it feels more right regardless of increasing "knowledge". 

 

That's a shame; because I suspect that you have a brilliant mind.

 

 

  Thanks for the comments.

 

You are more than welcome.

[duderonomy]

 

 

I was just thinking about the entire free will crap, and I realized that the OT god really didn't give much of a shit about anyone's free will. Suddenly in the NT.. this is a big deal?

 

If I am wrong, please.. do correct me!  

 

Nope. It's always been that way. Even in the O.T.  People could listen to God or ignore him.  Free will.

 

Not to argue, but just to explain. Consider yourself corrected.

 

 

I don't think that is entirely accurate.  Someone has already mentioned that god intentionally hardened Pharaoh's heart so that even if he had wanted to stave off the plagues, he wouldn't have been able to make the choice to do so.

 

Also, consider the choice given to Adam and Eve.  They were expected to choose between good and evil, but the difference between good and evil was never explained to them; and they couldn't have possibly understood the difference until after they had eaten the fruit and experienced evil.  How was that a choice they were free to make?

 

Then there's the problem of god's refusal to intervene when bad things happen to good people, or rather when evil people do evil things to good people.  god refuses to intervene because he doesn't want to interfere with people's free will; but the free will of the good people is being interfered with regardless.  In fact, it's being taken away from them altogether; or at least, I doubt you'd find too many good people who'd willingly choose to be raped, molested, murdered, or even thumped lightly on the head and their money taken.  So, it's really only the free will of evil people that god doesn't want to interfere with.  What a delightful prick!  I can't imagine why I stopped believing in him.

 

 

Actually, I should explain further. I said people could listen to Biblegod (as in obey him) or ignore him. I didn't say the choices were any good, 

There was free will in the OT the same as the NT.   Listen to Biblegod or else.  I was being sarcastic.

 

Prof, an argument could be made about Pharoah having had lots of chances before he finally made up his mind to ignore god. God hardened Pharoah's  heart, but that was a result of Pharoah's decision, not the cause of it.

 

Adam and Eve also had the same choice (I even used a variation of this argument somewhere on this site a couple of days ago), either listen to god or not. They didn't know the consequences, but they still had the choice.

 

I think an argument might be made against your third paragraph too, since the Bible says that the rain will fall on the just and the unjust, i.e; bad things might happen even to the 'best' of 'good' people, and those things don't necessarily happen to them by their own choice, or as a result of their choices.

 

I suppose someone might say that there is more to free will then just listening to Biblegod or not, but in the context of the Bible, no there isn't. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

C) there is no God

Cute... but not helpful, Pawn.

 

Yes, I know C's a valid option but I'm just trying to interact with End in a way that's not combative. After all, he asked us not to beat him up, didn't he?

Woah, who is beating anyone up? I am totally cool with End being a believer. I was a believer myself a short while ago. It's fine with be. I am just pointing out the rather obvious third option which makes sense to me, as the two options you listed are illogical to me.

 

But I am content and peaceable allowing End to choose whatever option. Peace.

 

 

Yeah... peace, Pawn.

 

There's a deal of misunderstanding between you and me and I'm the cause of it.  Sorry 'bout that! 

 

Lemme explain.

Of course there's that third option.  What you've written is entirely valid.  I accept that.  But here's the kicker! 

A and B might be illogical to you - but I was addressing the post to End, based on my reckoning that he wasn't ready to think in terms of C... at least, not just yet.  My bad for not making it crystal clear that I was confining things only to A and B, the two options I felt he was happy with.

 

His line of argument was that he thought of us humans as a part of a greater whole.  A subset of God, in his own words.  My response to this was to (hopefully) show that, like the Borg, this arrangement doesn't help free will, self-awareness and individuality to function and flourish - it does the reverse.  It destroys these things and just makes us drones, blindly serving God and robotically acting out what He predetermined before He creation.  Therefore, End's argument was flawed.  He was, in fact, promoting option A (God, the puppet master) and not B.

 

But do you see Pawn, how I couldn't just shoot him down in flames?  I had to proceed more gently and offer him just two options, the ones I felt he could handle.  So, does that explain my, "Cute" reply to you? 

 

Are we cool?  I hope so. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Ravenstar]

End3 is my favourite Christian! The conversations are always respectful and it doesn't end up in a lalalalalalala, can't hear you, goddidit war. End3, I am deeply impressed at your thoughtful and intelligent questions and answers.

 

Gives me hope that dialogue is possible.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

End3 is my favourite Christian! The conversations are always respectful and it doesn't end up in a lalalalalalala, can't hear you, goddidit war. End3, I am deeply impressed at your thoughtful and intelligent questions and answers.

 

Gives me hope that dialogue is possible.

 

I agree.  End3 is a lot of fun.  I think he's taking his doubts every bit as seriously as he takes his beliefs.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

I was just thinking about the entire free will crap, and I realized that the OT god really didn't give much of a shit about anyone's free will. Suddenly in the NT.. this is a big deal?

 

If I am wrong, please.. do correct me!  

 

Nope. It's always been that way. Even in the O.T.  People could listen to God or ignore him.  Free will.

 

Not to argue, but just to explain. Consider yourself corrected.

 

 

I don't think that is entirely accurate.  Someone has already mentioned that god intentionally hardened Pharaoh's heart so that even if he had wanted to stave off the plagues, he wouldn't have been able to make the choice to do so.

 

Also, consider the choice given to Adam and Eve.  They were expected to choose between good and evil, but the difference between good and evil was never explained to them; and they couldn't have possibly understood the difference until after they had eaten the fruit and experienced evil.  How was that a choice they were free to make?

 

Then there's the problem of god's refusal to intervene when bad things happen to good people, or rather when evil people do evil things to good people.  god refuses to intervene because he doesn't want to interfere with people's free will; but the free will of the good people is being interfered with regardless.  In fact, it's being taken away from them altogether; or at least, I doubt you'd find too many good people who'd willingly choose to be raped, molested, murdered, or even thumped lightly on the head and their money taken.  So, it's really only the free will of evil people that god doesn't want to interfere with.  What a delightful prick!  I can't imagine why I stopped believing in him.

 

 

Actually, I should explain further. I said people could listen to Biblegod (as in obey him) or ignore him. I didn't say the choices were any good, 

There was free will in the OT the same as the NT.   Listen to Biblegod or else.  I was being sarcastic.

 

Prof, an argument could be made about Pharoah having had lots of chances before he finally made up his mind to ignore god. God hardened Pharoah's  heart, but that was a result of Pharoah's decision, not the cause of it.

 

Adam and Eve also had the same choice (I even used a variation of this argument somewhere on this site a couple of days ago), either listen to god or not. They didn't know the consequences, but they still had the choice.

 

I think an argument might be made against your third paragraph too, since the Bible says that the rain will fall on the just and the unjust, i.e; bad things might happen even to the 'best' of 'good' people, and those things don't necessarily happen to them by their own choice, or as a result of their choices.

 

I suppose someone might say that there is more to free will then just listening to Biblegod or not, but in the context of the Bible, no there isn't. 

 

 

I still stand by my original post during which I said something to the effect of "you can't tell me I have free will if there is a punishment for my making the wrong choice, especially if that punishment so greatly outweighs the choice."  I contend that any god who puts forth free will as "choose me or go to hell for all eternity", either doesn't understand the concept of free will, or is a delusional tyrant.  We could argue the bible point by point (adam and eve, pharaoh, etc.), but the main principle remains: It's not free if there are strings attached.

[RipVanWinkle]

"There is an underlying sadism to christianity... creeps me out, and the 'free will' doctrine (scriptural or not) only adds a thin layer of rationalization to it."

 

There sure is, although I don't think most Xtians think about their doctrine deeply enough to realize it.

bill

[OrdinaryClay]

Universal free will is effectively demolished in the New Testament in Rom 8, Rom 9, and Eph 1:4-5,11.

Free will is a popular Christian talking point that ignores scripture.

Free will can exist with God's having known how we would choose. God's omniscience allows him to know, in the absolute sense, something will happen and yet the choice still remains with the free wiled agent. So given ...

 

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

(Eph 1:5)

 

It is perfectly compatible with reason that God knew of a possible world in which He knew with perfect knowledge how we would freely choose. He then actualized this world instance, that is, created a world and all the circumstances in which He knew you would freely choose a given set of actions. In this sense we are predestined and yet still posess free will. The word predestined does not neccessary mean He forces us to choose.

 

This becomes much clearer when you combine into your exegetical mix the enormous number of verses where people do have choice. God is clearly telling us through out the Bible we have a choice.

 

"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

(Jos 24:15)

 

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I was just thinking about the entire free will crap, and I realized that the OT god really didn't give much of a shit about anyone's free will. Suddenly in the NT.. this is a big deal?

 

If I am wrong, please.. do correct me!  

You are incorrect. The Old Testament is filled with choice. I just gave a verse above ..

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

Universal free will is effectively demolished in the New Testament in Rom 8, Rom 9, and Eph 1:4-5,11.

Free will is a popular Christian talking point that ignores scripture.

Free will can exist with God's having known how we would choose. God's omniscience allows him to know, in the absolute sense, something will happen and yet the choice still remains with the free wiled agent. So given ...

 

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

(Eph 1:5)

 

It is perfectly compatible with reason that God knew of a possible world in which He knew with perfect knowledge how we would freely choose. He then actualized this world instance, that is, created a world and all the circumstances in which He knew you would freely choose a given set of actions. In this sense we are predestined and yet still posess free will. The word predestined does not neccessary mean He forces us to choose.

 

This becomes much clearer when you combine into your exegetical mix the enormous number of verses where people do have choice. God is clearly telling us through out the Bible we have a choice.

 

"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

(Jos 24:15)

 

 

 

 

Really OC? Humans can't have free will and be predestined to make the choices they make at the same time. If it says in one part of the Bible that people are predestined for X and in another that they have free choice, then it is a contradiction.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Universal free will is effectively demolished in the New Testament in Rom 8, Rom 9, and Eph 1:4-5,11.

Free will is a popular Christian talking point that ignores scripture.

Free will can exist with God's having known how we would choose. God's omniscience allows him to know, in the absolute sense, something will happen and yet the choice still remains with the free wiled agent. So given ...

 

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

(Eph 1:5)

 

It is perfectly compatible with reason that God knew of a possible world in which He knew with perfect knowledge how we would freely choose. He then actualized this world instance, that is, created a world and all the circumstances in which He knew you would freely choose a given set of actions. In this sense we are predestined and yet still posess free will. The word predestined does not neccessary mean He forces us to choose.

 

This becomes much clearer when you combine into your exegetical mix the enormous number of verses where people do have choice. God is clearly telling us through out the Bible we have a choice.

 

"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

(Jos 24:15)

 

 

 

 

Really OC? Humans can't have free will and be predestined to make the choices they make at the same time. If it says in one part of the Bible that people are predestined for X and in another that they have free choice, then it is a contradiction.

 

No, as I just pointed out that it is not a logical contradiction if you consider God's omniscience and perfect knowledge at the time of creation. He could have created a world in which He knew how you would freely choose. He could have created a world in which you did not choose that way, but did not.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Universal free will is effectively demolished in the New Testament in Rom 8, Rom 9, and Eph 1:4-5,11.

Free will is a popular Christian talking point that ignores scripture.

Free will can exist with God's having known how we would choose. God's omniscience allows him to know, in the absolute sense, something will happen and yet the choice still remains with the free wiled agent. So given ...

 

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

(Eph 1:5)

 

It is perfectly compatible with reason that God knew of a possible world in which He knew with perfect knowledge how we would freely choose. He then actualized this world instance, that is, created a world and all the circumstances in which He knew you would freely choose a given set of actions. In this sense we are predestined and yet still posess free will. The word predestined does not neccessary mean He forces us to choose.

 

This becomes much clearer when you combine into your exegetical mix the enormous number of verses where people do have choice. God is clearly telling us through out the Bible we have a choice.

 

"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

(Jos 24:15)

 

 

 

 

Really OC? Humans can't have free will and be predestined to make the choices they make at the same time. If it says in one part of the Bible that people are predestined for X and in another that they have free choice, then it is a contradiction.

 

 

Contrariwise, if god has predestined us to make choice "X", but we end up making choice "Y", then god is not omniscient, since it did not forsee the choice we would make.  This is why the idea of "god's will" is so laughable.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

Universal free will is effectively demolished in the New Testament in Rom 8, Rom 9, and Eph 1:4-5,11.

Free will is a popular Christian talking point that ignores scripture.

Free will can exist with God's having known how we would choose. God's omniscience allows him to know, in the absolute sense, something will happen and yet the choice still remains with the free wiled agent. So given ...

 

He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

(Eph 1:5)

 

It is perfectly compatible with reason that God knew of a possible world in which He knew with perfect knowledge how we would freely choose. He then actualized this world instance, that is, created a world and all the circumstances in which He knew you would freely choose a given set of actions. In this sense we are predestined and yet still posess free will. The word predestined does not neccessary mean He forces us to choose.

 

This becomes much clearer when you combine into your exegetical mix the enormous number of verses where people do have choice. God is clearly telling us through out the Bible we have a choice.

 

"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

(Jos 24:15)

 

 

 

 

Really OC? Humans can't have free will and be predestined to make the choices they make at the same time. If it says in one part of the Bible that people are predestined for X and in another that they have free choice, then it is a contradiction.

 

 

Contrariwise, if god has predestined us to make choice "X", but we end up making choice "Y", then god is not omniscient, since it did not forsee the choice we would make.  This is why the idea of "god's will" is so laughable.

 

How in the world would you know if God predestined us to make a choice we did not make? This is not knowable by you or I so you can not make any claims about what is "laughable".