Free Will

[mymistake]

 

 

I'm just frustrated because y'all seemingly want it both ways....either to violate the rigid definition or have Carol Marol show Adam what was behind Door #2.

 

 

You are being disingenuous for Jesus.  It's okay.  I've been there and done that.  Do what you have to in order to keep your faith.

 

No I'm not MM. Adam was uninformed but free.

 

 

 

Adam was the figment of an author's imagination.  That author lived during the Bronze Age and had never heard of free will, consent or informed decisions.  This myth was created to explain questions that were on the minds of a Bronze Age audience.

 

There are no talking snakes.  There is no magic fruit.  A woman can't be created by taking a rib from a man and fashioning it.  It's a fable.

[bornagainathiest]

Out of curiosity, BAA, do you really believe Adam and Eve were innocent?

 

What I believe is irrelevant, prof.

 

Christianity holds that Adam was innocent... so that's the line I'm taking here.

 

I'm arguing that Adam didn't sin because he didn't have any free will to sin with.

 

Therefore, there's no sin for Jesus to take away with his self-sacrifice.  And so Christianity is built on a nonsense.

.

.

.

But now I have to go offline for a few hours.  Catch you guys later.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

What's the verse... And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Seems like this gels with what we are discussing

 

Truthfully, I don't think it matters....innocent and in the will of God or informed and in the will of God.

 

change, turn, repent...

[Neverlandrut]

You are wrong End3.  It does matter with respect to the will of god.  There is absolutely no way around this.  If you believe god is all-powerfull/knowing, then no decision we make (repent or not) is not our decision.  It is god's.  There would be no decision we could make because any will we think we have (free or not) is an illusion and god is ultimately in control of every decision we make.  If this is the case then every thing god does (punishing us for the free will/sin nature he is responsible for us having) is totally arbitrary and thus unjust.  If god is all-powerful/knowing then there is no such thing as justice/fairness/objective morality.  The only thing you can do with this is either concede that god is not all-knowing/powerful or that god's all-knowing/powerfulness makes life meaningless.  It makes life meaningless because there is no objective standard to anything.  God being all-powerful/knowing does not make him the objective standard.  It makes whatever standards there are the very epitome of arbitrary and subjective which makes god's omniscience and omnipotence a paradox.  Any other position you take on this will be logically flawed.  You will try, but your points will be incoherent and you will fail to recognize it. 

[mymistake]

What's the verse... And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Seems like this gels with what we are discussing

 

Truthfully, I don't think it matters....innocent and in the will of God or informed and in the will of God.

 

change, turn, repent...

 

 

The only way to be hoodwinked by a scam is to accept it without questioning it . . . like little children.

[Roz]

Here's a simple question for any christian here.  

 

Do you take the biblical account of genesis literally?  Literal 6 day creation, literal 1 man, 1 woman, talking snake, garden of eden, etc.

 

Or do you accept evolution?

[Guest end3]

You are wrong End3.  It does matter with respect to the will of god.  There is absolutely no way around this.  If you believe god is all-powerfull/knowing, then no decision we make (repent or not) is not our decision.  It is god's.  There would be no decision we could make because any will we think we have (free or not) is an illusion and god is ultimately in control of every decision we make.  If this is the case then every thing god does (punishing us for the free will/sin nature he is responsible for us having) is totally arbitrary and thus unjust.  If god is all-powerful/knowing then there is no such thing as justice/fairness/objective morality.  The only thing you can do with this is either concede that god is not all-knowing/powerful or that god's all-knowing/powerfulness makes life meaningless.  It makes life meaningless because there is no objective standard to anything.  God being all-powerful/knowing does not make him the objective standard.  It makes whatever standards there are the very epitome of arbitrary and subjective which makes god's omniscience and omnipotence a paradox.  Any other position you take on this will be logically flawed.  You will try, but your points will be incoherent and you will fail to recognize it.

I hear what you are saying. My opinion is if it is predestined, then we are not aware of it.

[Roz]

 

What's the verse... And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

Seems like this gels with what we are discussing

 

Truthfully, I don't think it matters....innocent and in the will of God or informed and in the will of God.

 

change, turn, repent...

 

 

The only way to be hoodwinked by a scam is to accept it without questioning it . . . like little children.

 

 

That's what it boils down to in christianity.  Just bow your head, pay your tithe money, and accept it all without thinking.  Accept that god is all knowing, and all good, so whatever he commands is good.  It doesn't matter what those commands are, christians like End3 have indicated that they will follow them.  

 

Christianity's defenders, think about your excuses for your own religion.  

 

Now imagine that someone of another religion is making those same excuses to get you to follow theirs.

 

Are you convinced?  If not, then you know how we feel about yours.

[Neverlandrut]

 

You are wrong End3.  It does matter with respect to the will of god.  There is absolutely no way around this.  If you believe god is all-powerfull/knowing, then no decision we make (repent or not) is not our decision.  It is god's.  There would be no decision we could make because any will we think we have (free or not) is an illusion and god is ultimately in control of every decision we make.  If this is the case then every thing god does (punishing us for the free will/sin nature he is responsible for us having) is totally arbitrary and thus unjust.  If god is all-powerful/knowing then there is no such thing as justice/fairness/objective morality.  The only thing you can do with this is either concede that god is not all-knowing/powerful or that god's all-knowing/powerfulness makes life meaningless.  It makes life meaningless because there is no objective standard to anything.  God being all-powerful/knowing does not make him the objective standard.  It makes whatever standards there are the very epitome of arbitrary and subjective which makes god's omniscience and omnipotence a paradox.  Any other position you take on this will be logically flawed.  You will try, but your points will be incoherent and you will fail to recognize it.

I hear what you are saying. My opinion is if it is predestined, then we are not aware of it.

 

But we are aware of the possibility of predestination which begs the question.  It is either god is not omniscient/omnipotent, possibly rendering us responsible for our actions and deserving of punishment/reward, or god is omniscient/omnipotent making everything we do in life meaningless because all of our actions were predestined according to god's arbitrary whim.  It cannot be both ways.  If it is the former, then why call him god?  If it is the later, then everything is meaningless.  If you are going to believe in god, the former seems the better option.  God could be really really powerful and knowing, but not ALL.  But this defies the traditionally accepted attributes of god and leaves you with the problem of defining the limits of god's knowledge and power, a god who is said to be limitless (a paradox still for the christian god).  This is the real crux of the theistic problem, the lack of a coherent/unified definition of god. 

[Roz]

 This is the real crux of the theistic problem, the lack of a coherent/unified definition of god. 

 

I want to add something to that, because even though christians can't agree on their definitions of their own god, they all declare with 100% certainty that their god is real.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I can see where you and I are diverging Prof.

 

You are adding possibilities to the Genesis narrative... possibilities that only make sense in your knowledgeable and informed frame of reference.

 

I'm confining myself to what the text says and no more.

I'm sticking to Adam's total innocence, because that's what in scripture.  I'm not exploring what God could or should have done.  Only to what it says there, the internal logic of that and no more.  This is why we are disagreeing on what being informed means.  According to Genesis Adam was innocent.  Therefore, his condition of innocence HAS to stand and stay unchanged in any explanation or argument based only on the text.  

 

By introducing new elements into the argument Prof, you are changing things from their original condition.

I don't agree with that.  We can't fully  understand and appreciate how unworkable the Fall really is unless we examine it in it's original form.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is a fair point, BAA.  I did bring unnecessary confusion by adding conjecture into the mix.  I appreciate you pointing it out to me. 

 

However, if we are going strictly off of what the scripture says, then I have to argue against Adam and Eve ever being innocent in the first place.  As I've said before in other threads, Eve's motivation for eating the fruit was pride mixed with envy.  It would seem to me that she would be unable to experience those emotions if she were truly innocent.  Thus, I suspect that she had the capacity for sin even before her run-in with the serpent.  Based on this, I would hypothesize that the "fall" didn't cause the "sin nature"; rather the "sin nature" caused the "fall"... just as god planned.

[Guest end3]

 

I can see where you and I are diverging Prof.

 

You are adding possibilities to the Genesis narrative... possibilities that only make sense in your knowledgeable and informed frame of reference.

 

I'm confining myself to what the text says and no more.

I'm sticking to Adam's total innocence, because that's what in scripture.  I'm not exploring what God could or should have done.  Only to what it says there, the internal logic of that and no more.  This is why we are disagreeing on what being informed means.  According to Genesis Adam was innocent.  Therefore, his condition of innocence HAS to stand and stay unchanged in any explanation or argument based only on the text.  

 

By introducing new elements into the argument Prof, you are changing things from their original condition.

I don't agree with that.  We can't fully  understand and appreciate how unworkable the Fall really is unless we examine it in it's original form.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is a fair point, BAA.  I did bring unnecessary confusion by adding conjecture into the mix.  I appreciate you pointing it out to me. 

 

However, if we are going strictly off of what the scripture says, then I have to argue against Adam and Eve ever being innocent in the first place.  As I've said before in other threads, Eve's motivation for eating the fruit was pride mixed with envy.  It would seem to me that she would be unable to experience those emotions if she were truly innocent.  Thus, I suspect that she had the capacity for sin even before her run-in with the serpent.  Based on this, I would hypothesize that the "fall" didn't cause the "sin nature"; rather the "sin nature" caused the "fall"... just as god planned.

 

How does that exclude free will.....the option has to be there, does it not?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

I can see where you and I are diverging Prof.

 

You are adding possibilities to the Genesis narrative... possibilities that only make sense in your knowledgeable and informed frame of reference.

 

I'm confining myself to what the text says and no more.

I'm sticking to Adam's total innocence, because that's what in scripture.  I'm not exploring what God could or should have done.  Only to what it says there, the internal logic of that and no more.  This is why we are disagreeing on what being informed means.  According to Genesis Adam was innocent.  Therefore, his condition of innocence HAS to stand and stay unchanged in any explanation or argument based only on the text.  

 

By introducing new elements into the argument Prof, you are changing things from their original condition.

I don't agree with that.  We can't fully  understand and appreciate how unworkable the Fall really is unless we examine it in it's original form.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is a fair point, BAA.  I did bring unnecessary confusion by adding conjecture into the mix.  I appreciate you pointing it out to me. 

 

However, if we are going strictly off of what the scripture says, then I have to argue against Adam and Eve ever being innocent in the first place.  As I've said before in other threads, Eve's motivation for eating the fruit was pride mixed with envy.  It would seem to me that she would be unable to experience those emotions if she were truly innocent.  Thus, I suspect that she had the capacity for sin even before her run-in with the serpent.  Based on this, I would hypothesize that the "fall" didn't cause the "sin nature"; rather the "sin nature" caused the "fall"... just as god planned.

 

How does that exclude free will.....the option has to be there, does it not?

 

I overlooked the part where I said that their lack of innocence excluded free will.  Could you point it out to me, please? 

[Guest end3]

I'll quit. Apologies. Lot of stress in my life atm. Don't mean to be an ass. Just my nature/need for doing better.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

This is the real crux of the theistic problem, the lack of a coherent/unified definition of god.

I want to add something to that, because even though christians can't agree on their definitions of their own god, they all declare with 100% certainty that their god is real.

 

This one's funny! Most of NoneStampCollector's are.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'll quit. Apologies. Lot of stress in my life atm. Don't mean to be an ass. Just my nature/need for doing better.

I hope you get to feeling better; but for the record, you weren't being an ass. 

[LifeCycle]

 

Threat of punishment for making the wrong decision influences the decision-making process. Free will cannot exist where influence does exist. You're either free too choose without influence or you're not.

 

The way I see it, the biblical case for free will is beyond faulty. It's outright laughable to even consider that we have such a thing as my example above illustrates. Besides, free will is largely the smaller factor when you consider what things most influence our belief... Such as, the place on the planet in which we're born.

 

Add to this, this god wants to torment you for the mere fact of being deceived. You don't believe in this god because x, y or z and any of those reasons are good enough for you but unfortunately, you're wrong are doomed to everlasting torment. Why anyone would want to serve that god is beyond me.

Interesting thought because you bring up the issue of why does God not tell A&E about hell.

 

He didn't tell them because the authors of the bible were sketchy mother fuckers.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

Threat of punishment for making the wrong decision influences the decision-making process. Free will cannot exist where influence does exist. You're either free too choose without influence or you're not.

 

The way I see it, the biblical case for free will is beyond faulty. It's outright laughable to even consider that we have such a thing as my example above illustrates. Besides, free will is largely the smaller factor when you consider what things most influence our belief... Such as, the place on the planet in which we're born.

 

Add to this, this god wants to torment you for the mere fact of being deceived. You don't believe in this god because x, y or z and any of those reasons are good enough for you but unfortunately, you're wrong are doomed to everlasting torment. Why anyone would want to serve that god is beyond me.

Interesting thought because you bring up the issue of why does God not tell A&E about hell.

He didn't tell them because the authors of the bible were sketchy mother fuckers.

He didn't tell them because Hell was a non-existent doctrine in ancient Israelite culture at the time the creation story was written. Hell, as we know it, was not even an idea until much later, around the time of Christianity and was heavily influenced by pagan religions.

[LifeCycle]

 

 

 

Threat of punishment for making the wrong decision influences the decision-making process. Free will cannot exist where influence does exist. You're either free too choose without influence or you're not.

 

The way I see it, the biblical case for free will is beyond faulty. It's outright laughable to even consider that we have such a thing as my example above illustrates. Besides, free will is largely the smaller factor when you consider what things most influence our belief... Such as, the place on the planet in which we're born.

 

Add to this, this god wants to torment you for the mere fact of being deceived. You don't believe in this god because x, y or z and any of those reasons are good enough for you but unfortunately, you're wrong are doomed to everlasting torment. Why anyone would want to serve that god is beyond me.

Interesting thought because you bring up the issue of why does God not tell A&E about hell.

He didn't tell them because the authors of the bible were sketchy mother fuckers.

He didn't tell them because Hell was a non-existent doctrine in ancient Israelite culture at the time the creation story was written. Hell, as we know it, was not even an idea until much later, around the time of Christianity and was heavily influenced by pagan religions.

 

That is correct, but they were still sketchy mother fuckers.

[bornagainathiest]

 

You are wrong End3.  It does matter with respect to the will of god.  There is absolutely no way around this.  If you believe god is all-powerfull/knowing, then no decision we make (repent or not) is not our decision.  It is god's.  There would be no decision we could make because any will we think we have (free or not) is an illusion and god is ultimately in control of every decision we make.  If this is the case then every thing god does (punishing us for the free will/sin nature he is responsible for us having) is totally arbitrary and thus unjust.  If god is all-powerful/knowing then there is no such thing as justice/fairness/objective morality.  The only thing you can do with this is either concede that god is not all-knowing/powerful or that god's all-knowing/powerfulness makes life meaningless.  It makes life meaningless because there is no objective standard to anything.  God being all-powerful/knowing does not make him the objective standard.  It makes whatever standards there are the very epitome of arbitrary and subjective which makes god's omniscience and omnipotence a paradox.  Any other position you take on this will be logically flawed.  You will try, but your points will be incoherent and you will fail to recognize it.

I hear what you are saying. My opinion is if it is predestined, then we are not aware of it.

 

 

Predestination isn't about being unaware that God is controlling you like a puppet, End.

 

It's about who is responsible for the puppet's actions.  The puppet itself or the one pulling the puppet's strings.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I can see where you and I are diverging Prof.

 

You are adding possibilities to the Genesis narrative... possibilities that only make sense in your knowledgeable and informed frame of reference.

 

I'm confining myself to what the text says and no more.

I'm sticking to Adam's total innocence, because that's what in scripture.  I'm not exploring what God could or should have done.  Only to what it says there, the internal logic of that and no more.  This is why we are disagreeing on what being informed means.  According to Genesis Adam was innocent.  Therefore, his condition of innocence HAS to stand and stay unchanged in any explanation or argument based only on the text.  

 

By introducing new elements into the argument Prof, you are changing things from their original condition.

I don't agree with that.  We can't fully  understand and appreciate how unworkable the Fall really is unless we examine it in it's original form.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is a fair point, BAA.  I did bring unnecessary confusion by adding conjecture into the mix.  I appreciate you pointing it out to me. 

 

However, if we are going strictly off of what the scripture says, then I have to argue against Adam and Eve ever being innocent in the first place.  As I've said before in other threads, Eve's motivation for eating the fruit was pride mixed with envy.  It would seem to me that she would be unable to experience those emotions if she were truly innocent.  Thus, I suspect that she had the capacity for sin even before her run-in with the serpent.  Based on this, I would hypothesize that the "fall" didn't cause the "sin nature"; rather the "sin nature" caused the "fall"... just as god planned.

 

 

Ok Prof, let's test your scenario with some questions.

You're positing that Eve (and Adam?) made an... informed ...choice to disobey God, because they already understood good and evil.

 

1.

If physical death didn't come thru the informed disobedience of A&E, was there any physical death in the world, before they disobeyed?

 

2.

If sin didn't come thru their informed disobedience, was there any sin in Eden, before they disobeyed?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

I can see where you and I are diverging Prof.

 

You are adding possibilities to the Genesis narrative... possibilities that only make sense in your knowledgeable and informed frame of reference.

 

I'm confining myself to what the text says and no more.

I'm sticking to Adam's total innocence, because that's what in scripture.  I'm not exploring what God could or should have done.  Only to what it says there, the internal logic of that and no more.  This is why we are disagreeing on what being informed means.  According to Genesis Adam was innocent.  Therefore, his condition of innocence HAS to stand and stay unchanged in any explanation or argument based only on the text.  

 

By introducing new elements into the argument Prof, you are changing things from their original condition.

I don't agree with that.  We can't fully  understand and appreciate how unworkable the Fall really is unless we examine it in it's original form.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is a fair point, BAA.  I did bring unnecessary confusion by adding conjecture into the mix.  I appreciate you pointing it out to me. 

 

However, if we are going strictly off of what the scripture says, then I have to argue against Adam and Eve ever being innocent in the first place.  As I've said before in other threads, Eve's motivation for eating the fruit was pride mixed with envy.  It would seem to me that she would be unable to experience those emotions if she were truly innocent.  Thus, I suspect that she had the capacity for sin even before her run-in with the serpent.  Based on this, I would hypothesize that the "fall" didn't cause the "sin nature"; rather the "sin nature" caused the "fall"... just as god planned.

 

 

Ok Prof, let's test your scenario with some questions.

You're positing that Eve (and Adam?) made an... informed ...choice to disobey God, because they already understood good and evil.

 

1.

If physical death didn't come thru the informed disobedience of A&E, was there any physical death in the world, before they disobeyed?

 

2.

If sin didn't come thru their informed disobedience, was there any sin in Eden, before they disobeyed?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

No, I'm positing nothing on the viewpoint that Adam and Eve made an informed decision to disobey. 

 

What I put forth is the possibility that sinful motivation was already a part of their nature, given that Eve experienced envy and pride.  This does not mean they understood "sin" or good and evil; the text would suggest they did not until after they had acted upon it.   It simply means that the potential to commit sin was already within them, before they disobeyed.

 

Therefore, I would humbly submit that your questions are based upon a faulty assumption. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

I can see where you and I are diverging Prof.

 

You are adding possibilities to the Genesis narrative... possibilities that only make sense in your knowledgeable and informed frame of reference.

 

I'm confining myself to what the text says and no more.

I'm sticking to Adam's total innocence, because that's what in scripture.  I'm not exploring what God could or should have done.  Only to what it says there, the internal logic of that and no more.  This is why we are disagreeing on what being informed means.  According to Genesis Adam was innocent.  Therefore, his condition of innocence HAS to stand and stay unchanged in any explanation or argument based only on the text.  

 

By introducing new elements into the argument Prof, you are changing things from their original condition.

I don't agree with that.  We can't fully  understand and appreciate how unworkable the Fall really is unless we examine it in it's original form.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is a fair point, BAA.  I did bring unnecessary confusion by adding conjecture into the mix.  I appreciate you pointing it out to me. 

 

However, if we are going strictly off of what the scripture says, then I have to argue against Adam and Eve ever being innocent in the first place.  As I've said before in other threads, Eve's motivation for eating the fruit was pride mixed with envy.  It would seem to me that she would be unable to experience those emotions if she were truly innocent.  Thus, I suspect that she had the capacity for sin even before her run-in with the serpent.  Based on this, I would hypothesize that the "fall" didn't cause the "sin nature"; rather the "sin nature" caused the "fall"... just as god planned.

 

 

Ok Prof, let's test your scenario with some questions.

You're positing that Eve (and Adam?) made an... informed ...choice to disobey God, because they already understood good and evil.

 

1.

If physical death didn't come thru the informed disobedience of A&E, was there any physical death in the world, before they disobeyed?

 

2.

If sin didn't come thru their informed disobedience, was there any sin in Eden, before they disobeyed?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

No, I'm positing nothing on the viewpoint that Adam and Eve made an informed decision to disobey. 

 

What I put forth is the possibility that sinful motivation was already a part of their nature, given that Eve experienced envy and pride.  This does not mean they understood "sin" or good and evil; the text would suggest they did not until after they had acted upon it.   It simply means that the potential to commit sin was already within them, before they disobeyed.

 

Therefore, I would humbly submit that your questions are based upon a faulty assumption. 

 

 

Ah... so you're positing that Eve couldn't associate the envy and pride she felt with the concepts of sin and good and evil?

 

Which absolves her from making a knowing, premeditated and informed choice?

 

Leaving her innocent of making a knowingly sinful and evil choice to disobey God?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I can see where you and I are diverging Prof.

 

You are adding possibilities to the Genesis narrative... possibilities that only make sense in your knowledgeable and informed frame of reference.

 

I'm confining myself to what the text says and no more.

I'm sticking to Adam's total innocence, because that's what in scripture.  I'm not exploring what God could or should have done.  Only to what it says there, the internal logic of that and no more.  This is why we are disagreeing on what being informed means.  According to Genesis Adam was innocent.  Therefore, his condition of innocence HAS to stand and stay unchanged in any explanation or argument based only on the text.  

 

By introducing new elements into the argument Prof, you are changing things from their original condition.

I don't agree with that.  We can't fully  understand and appreciate how unworkable the Fall really is unless we examine it in it's original form.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is a fair point, BAA.  I did bring unnecessary confusion by adding conjecture into the mix.  I appreciate you pointing it out to me. 

 

However, if we are going strictly off of what the scripture says, then I have to argue against Adam and Eve ever being innocent in the first place.  As I've said before in other threads, Eve's motivation for eating the fruit was pride mixed with envy.  It would seem to me that she would be unable to experience those emotions if she were truly innocent.  Thus, I suspect that she had the capacity for sin even before her run-in with the serpent.  Based on this, I would hypothesize that the "fall" didn't cause the "sin nature"; rather the "sin nature" caused the "fall"... just as god planned.

 

How does that exclude free will.....the option has to be there, does it not?

 

 

That depends on how you define free will, End.

[bornagainathiest]

In a way we've come round to this, Prof.

 

Is ignorance an excuse or not?