Storm Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 BAA, I took no offense at your original statement and I understood what you meant. Thanks for your clarification though. You're all good in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I mentioned in an earlier post that there is a verse in which god will send a "strong delusion" so that many will believe a lie. What kind of god would do something like this? Belief in this delusion will likely result in many going to hell--- yet GOD is the one manipulating them. Then take Revelation where god "allows" the devil his time to deceive many and then in the end these same people are sent to a lake of fire. What kind of manipulative asshole would do this kind if thing? It was stuff like this that made me question and then eventually decide I couldn't worship a god who would do things like this. Free will my ass-- this is total manipulation and abusiveness!!! Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.(2Th 2:8-12) Context is everything. Oh so people who didn't choose the right religion back when there was no clear reason to think one was any better than the thousands of other religions - those are the people God is going to curse with a delusion and force them to believe what is false. God is an asshole. God being an asshole ". . . in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth . . . ". But God is the one who made them not believe. So that God can torture them forever. What a dick! Yes--- Ordinary Clay. context is everything---- and you just proved that god is a liar and and asshole with the verse you quoted. Why in the hell would anyone want to worship a god like that? He is just as bad as the devil in this case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivingLife Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 The burden is on you to show a choice is not free. It is not mine. You are the one making the counter claim. A choice is clear evidence of free will. If you think there is a counter explanation for how a choice can be made then present it. You are arbitrarily shifting the burden of explanation. btw - did you change your handle name? There is no need for me to prove anything. I have already explained why we have no free will. Predestination is closer to reality. For anyone to claim free will exists, it has to work in the secular sense too. If you do not abide by secular laws, you pay the consequence, ergo, you are not a free agent to make arbitrary choices. All of your choices are pre determined by circumstances outside of your control. I am not talking of simple stuff like brushing your teeth, even this mundane task is not really free unless you can live with a furry mouth and bad breath. I prefer a cup of coffee before I brush my teeth and the exact time I do the deed is inconsequential. This is more a habit than a choice. At one time I applied for work and got two offers simultaneously. The choice I made to accept the lesser paying one was determined by geographics and had benefits the other one did not have like a company car which was only for business use, saved me paying out of pocket for commute costs. My preference was to work for myself but the economy had taken a nose dive and I had bills to meet. IOW, I was forced by circumstances outside my control to do something I preferred not to do. Simple things like picking out say furniture, you are restricted by the choices presented to you and make a choice based on those. You do not have the ability to choose anything other than the choices presented and what may or may not influence your taste. You cannot order anything that is not on the menu plus it has to be within your budget. In your religious mindset, if you chose to be Hindu being born into an xian home in a predominantly xian culture, perhaps your argument would have merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 The burden is on you to show a choice is not free. It is not mine. You are the one making the counter claim. A choice is clear evidence of free will. If you think there is a counter explanation for how a choice can be made then present it. You are arbitrarily shifting the burden of explanation. The counter explanation was already provided over a year ago and again in this thread. The counter explanation is God's will. If an attribute or choice was predestined by God, then it wasn't made by the individual. Scripture clearly states that God predestines at least some things. The burden of proof is on you to show that God never predestines someone to a choice or condition. Are you saying that you chose when to be born and chose your parents? Did you choose your genetic makeup? Doesn't scripture declare that God determines genetic makup? Is this verse a lie? Exo 4:11 And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord? Isn't God supposed to be the pot maker and humans are his clay pots? Is that a false teaching? Who directs the action in this verse, the human will or God's will? Prov 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps. The roles of Jacob and Esau were predestined by God, they didn't have choice in the matter. "It is not of him that willeth, but of God!" Rom 9:11-16 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Many Bibles even title Romans 9 as "God's sovereign choice". How in the world do you know how much predestination God engages in? Or, are you completely denying that God predestines or manipulates anything? BTW, if a dictator gives you a choice of kissing his ring or being sent to prison and tortured, were you given a free choice? Ability to choose does not automatically equate to having free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Hey Centauri, if I can just toss in a remark: the Exodus verse doesn't overturn the Molinist position to which OC subscribes. The Proverb too seems compatible with Molinism. I agree with you, though, that the Romans quotation, and others like it that you've offered in the past, excludes Molinism: it is not of him that willeth (i.e. the creature) but of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Hey Centauri, if I can just toss in a remark: the Exodus verse doesn't overturn the Molinist position to which OC subscribes. The Proverb too seems compatible with Molinism. I agree with you, though, that the Romans quotation, and others like it that you've offered in the past, excludes Molinism: it is not of him that willeth (i.e. the creature) but of God. For me, the Exodus verse subordinates humans to God. The problem I have with Molinism is that it subordinates God in order to honor the concept of human "free will". In a sense, it has the tail wagging the dog. God creates a world where the will of the individual is honored based on God knowing what they would choose if they existed in that world. Under that scenario, God only predestines the world or setting that match what the individual would have chosen under a certain set of conditions. Humans then, on their own, follow the path they would have chosen by themselves. God floats in an ether of "middle knowledge", where he predestines only the basic design and then tailors it to suit the choice the human would have made. I find Molinism to be an attempt to make God something of a bystander that conforms to the needs of human will. It satisfies the desire to portray God as being "fair". It also pawns off evil as coming from humans as a result of their decisions. If God's works are truly perfect as the Bible declares, I find it difficult to see why this God would punish people for expressing his perfection. If a perfect work is actually imperfect, then such imperfection might merit punishment. But the whole God construct collapses if his works are actually flawed rather than being perfect. A perfect being by definition cannot commit an imperfect act. As I read it, Molinism fits the definition of "word salad" in most cases, resting on a foundation of pure speculation. W.L. Craig is especially fond of weaving hypotheticals of what God does and does not do. As you pointed out, even if it was applicable in some cases, it doesn't cover sections like Romans. I haven't read any scenario from a Molinist where God lets sinners that reject Jesus (using their free will) escape damnation, although there is a concept of trans-world damnation (making the wrong choice in all possible worlds). The Molinist God goes to all this trouble to set up a world that honors free wiil and then damns people for using their free will in a way he doesn't like (rejection of Jesus). In any case, there's way too much rationalizing going on for me to take Molinism very seriously, and it attempts to give the will of God a convenient on-off switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawn Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 When I was a Christian, (just a short time ago) I was a fanatical bible student and theologian. I've read and studied the bible from cover to cover at least 5 times. I came to the very obvious conclusion that the scripture is unequivocal in that "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being PREDESTINATED according to the purpose of him WHO WORKETH ALL THINGS ACCORDING TO THE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL:" Ephesians 1:11 All of scripture clearly delineates that God is Almighty, and he is LORD of all things, and is in control of all things. Now, I am an unbeliever at this time, but as a believer, I saw that biblical scripture very clearly makes the point of predestination and saw everything in scripture as being in agreement that there is NO WILL but God's and everything is under his Will. Any Christian that believes in free will hasn't studied the biblical scriptures very clearly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawn Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Oh, and the IRONY of it all, is that apparently good old bible-god has PREDESTINATED me to become an atheist! Funny bible-god, he does have a Mighty sense of humor, doesn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 "Don't confuse "free to choose between poop or crap" with any strings that may be attached. "There are strings attached to every free will decision we make, even in real life, because choices involve (include) consequences." I stand by that. Your analogy doesn't fit. Duderonomy, I also stand by my original post in this thread. I can see that we have different perspectives and that neither of us is willing to change our stance. This doesn't mean anything. Neither of us is right or wrong, we simply don't agree. I'm okay with calling a truce and agreeing to disagree. Are you? I couldn't agree more, prof. Very well said. :-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Some of you have mentioned that this topic has been covered here before. I used the search feature and it just led me back to this thread. Can anyone help out with a link to the other free will threads? I'm learning a bit from this thread, and maybe I could from the others too. It seems that free will means different things to different people, within and without the Bible. Has free will ever been defined for the sake of argument? This is one of those very very rare instances where I think that maybe I don't know everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 BAA, I took no offense at your original statement and I understood what you meant. Thanks for your clarification though. You're all good in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Some of you have mentioned that this topic has been covered here before. I used the search feature and it just led me back to this thread. Can anyone help out with a link to the other free will threads? I'm learning a bit from this thread, and maybe I could from the others too. It seems that free will means different things to different people, within and without the Bible. Has free will ever been defined for the sake of argument? This is one of those very very rare instances where I think that maybe I don't know everything. Hey Dude, there was a lot of discussion in summer 2012 on here: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/50226-repenting-after-death/page-34 Again these topics came up in April 2013 on here, esp. from post #74 and following (lots of exchanges betw Centauri and OC, etc.): http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55943-does-evil-exist/page-3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 When I was a Christian, (just a short time ago) I was a fanatical bible student and theologian. I've read and studied the bible from cover to cover at least 5 times. I came to the very obvious conclusion that the scripture is unequivocal in that "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being PREDESTINATED according to the purpose of him WHO WORKETH ALL THINGS ACCORDING TO THE COUNSEL OF HIS OWN WILL:" Ephesians 1:11 All of scripture clearly delineates that God is Almighty, and he is LORD of all things, and is in control of all things. Now, I am an unbeliever at this time, but as a believer, I saw that biblical scripture very clearly makes the point of predestination and saw everything in scripture as being in agreement that there is NO WILL but God's and everything is under his Will. Any Christian that believes in free will hasn't studied the biblical scriptures very clearly. I too, have the same take on Eph 1:11, one of the most powerful verses for predestination. The only way to get around the conclusion is to rewrite the scripture and water it down by adding qualifiers to it, which is exactly what apologists do. It's particularly annoying when a preacher asserts that "free will" is a theological fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Yes, William Lane Craig's beloved Molinism is at best an attempt to reconcile creaturely free will with God's omni/everything and predestination ONCE it is assumed that creatures make free will decisions. Molinism just assumes creaturely free will. It does not demonstrate it. The stuff I read from Molina himself last year talked about humans' decisions and God's knowledge of what could have happened under other circumstances (e.g. Jesus says, if the miracles done among you [Capernaum] had been done in Sodom, it would be standing to this day). I don't recall Molina giving scripture to prove that humans make FREE WILL decisions. Our chum OrdinaryClay insists, if I understand him rightly, that the libertarian qualifier is just part of what it means for someone to make a decision. OC says that we change the accepted meanings of terms if we deny this and if we deny its applicability to Bible verses - i.e. he holds, if the Bible presents a creature's decision, the creature makes the decision by free will, with no explanatorily prior act of will by God about said decision -- or even, as in cases adduced by Centauri and others, prior also in the order of creation (e.g. God hardened Pharaoh's heart). We're all waiting for OC to demonstrate his free-will assumptions are biblical. So far he has only brought in extra-biblical considerations in favor of them. Some may agree with OC about free will vs. determinism, others may disagree; it's a huge and very much-argued topic in and outside theology. What is at stake for the present discussion is whether the Bible God can be absolved of responsibility for evil by the maneuvers of Molinism. If Molinism relies on extra-biblical assumptions, then it fails in the endeavor to whitewash the Bible. I would say it begs the question from the get-go. (it also equivocates, but I've laid out the reasons for the latter charge in detail last year.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Well, I suppose that there's another conclusion we could reach, seeing as the Bible presents conflicting views of God's position on the predestination issue. Why not just conclude that the Bible is the accummulated words of fallible, conflicted and imperfect men? No need to harmonize the unharmonizable. No need to reconcile the irreconcilable. No need to deal with that which is mutually exclusive. Game over! BAA p.s. Btw, who did buy the field of blood? Judas or the High Priests? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawn Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Well, I suppose that there's another conclusion we could reach, seeing as the Bible presents conflicting views of God's position on the predestination issue. Why not just conclude that the Bible is the accummulated words of fallible, conflicted and imperfect men? No need to harmonize the unharmonizable. No need to reconcile the irreconcilable. No need to deal with that which is mutually exclusive. Game over! BAA p.s. Btw, who did buy the field of blood? Judas or the High Priests? Precisely, that is yet another reason I deconverted, ultimately none of it makes any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I read somewhere recently that there are apologists for the bible, but not apologists for atheism. Could it be that atheism is right and that, because there is no wrong in atheism, there is nothing to have to be defended and clarified? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernweh Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I read somewhere recently that there are apologists for the bible, but not apologists for atheism. Could it be that atheism is right and that, because there is no wrong in atheism, there is nothing to have to be defended and clarified? Well, the Universe looks exactly as one might expect without the presence of any deities. Neither of of the creation stories from Genesis jibe with the observable Universe so the apologist has to start right there to try and shoehorn a deity into reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 To Centauri and Ficino... Here's a point to consider when it comes to finding which parts of scripture carry the most weight and authority, when it comes to the issue of free will versus predestination. http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess005a.htm If we adopt the working principles of Progressive Revelation (PR), then Paul's testimony on the matter takes precedence. His is the doctrine with which all other scripture should be brought into line with. After all, didn't he receive his rank (Apostle), his commission (Apostle to the Gentiles) and his tuition directly from the risen and glorified Jesus after Christ's earthly mission of salvation was completed? And isn't Paul's gospel chronologically newer (and therefore more complete) than Matthew, Mark, Luke or John's? Your thoughts? BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Hey BAA, the link you posted doesn't seem to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Just fixed it! Try now, bro'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Double post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Thanks for the link, BAA. I'm not going to take a position on what the guy in the link is arguing. I do understand that generally the christian church has held that the NT takes precedence over the old inasmuch as the Old points to, and is fulfilled in, Christ and the church. But then you get into how to weigh one thing against another. Catholics have some sort of system for this, since they have a robust ecclesiology. Prots have private judgment and warring claims about who possesses the guidance of the HS... As i said earlier, I think what's at stake in the free will/predestination/Molinism discussions is the character of God of the Bible and the problem of evil that arises around that character. I don't think Molinism is successful in absolving the God of the Bible of responsibility for evil. I agree with Centauri and others (you, right?) that the will of God of the Bible is portrayed by Paul and other writers as trumping the wills of creatures absolutely. I think the "free will" position actually isn't expressed in scripture, but if I'm wrong and it is expressed there, then we have the sort of contradiction that you outlined a few posts back. edited to add: "trumping" isn't the best verb to use. Maybe "determining" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 If at the moment of creation God knew exactly how everything would pan out, why did he bother? Why did he get pissed off so much in the OT if he KNEW it was going to happen? Explain that! Why do I need to explain it. There is no need to explain it. Whether we have an explanation or not is of no difference to the mater at hand. If you can't even attempt to reconcile your theory with God's behavior, why should anyone think you know something they don't? You are the one who believes weird shit here. If you can't make it seem less weird, what chance do you have? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 To Centauri and Ficino... Here's a point to consider when it comes to finding which parts of scripture carry the most weight and authority, when it comes to the issue of free will versus predestination. http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess005a.htm If we adopt the working principles of Progressive Revelation (PR), then Paul's testimony on the matter takes precedence. His is the doctrine with which all other scripture should be brought into line with. After all, didn't he receive his rank (Apostle), his commission (Apostle to the Gentiles) and his tuition directly from the risen and glorified Jesus after Christ's earthly mission of salvation was completed? And isn't Paul's gospel chronologically newer (and therefore more complete) than Matthew, Mark, Luke or John's? Your thoughts? BAA Assuming the principles of progressive revelation, I would agree that Paul's writings would be of more weight and it is supposed to be earlier than the gospels, which makes sense in that Paul seems to know nothing of the sayings and actual ministry of Jesus. He makes no mention whatsoever of a virgin birth and never refers to Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth". Paul's writings are the strongest support for predestination. I also agree with Ficino that Molinism is an attempt to get God off the hook for the existence of evil, even though the Bible states in Isa 45:7 that God creates evil (and all things). That subject was also beat to death some time ago with Thumbelina and others. The evil in Isa 45:7 includes ethical evil not just disaster or calamity, so it's game over as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts