|
Just because God "knows" what you will choose before you choose it doesn't make it an illusion. You still have the freedom to choose and he won't intervene or force you to choose a or b. Which is why we see evil in the world, God allows evil to occur out of respect for holding true to this ultimate gift of free will, it's not like we have free will...until we try to choose evil.
Guys like Sam Harris use the "evil is in the world therefore God either a. doesn't exist or b. is a monster who isn't worth following anyway" fail to grasp the reality of what free will is from a religious standpoint.
In order for there to be a choice there has to be good/evil, otherwise there's no real choice. God could have created a good world with only good choices, but there's no real higher meaning to that sort of an existence. In order for there to be great good there has to be great evil.
|
But God planned our choices too, did he not?
|
Nah, somehow God created us with free will, which meant he didn't always plan what decisions we would make. Which then gets into the determinism and compatibilism debates, and that's a whole mess
|
On September 27 2013 10:56 mizU wrote:
But God planned our choices too, did he not?
Does him planning our choices affect how we choose?
|
I would just like to say that whether or not Christianity endorses free will or determinism via predestination is something that has been debated within Christianity through its entire history. Unfortunately for all the New Atheists that try to (with all seriousness) say that the concept of free will is fundamentally a religious idea, their assertion has no basis in history and is full of bunk given all the ink and curses that have been spilt over the topic. Apparently Calvin does not exist in their universal history, nor Luther's polemics against Dun Scotus over the question of free will. Honestly the question of free will is one of the worst questions ever and any real concerted effort to deal with whether there is or is not a free will is a true waste of time.
|
On September 27 2013 11:54 koreasilver wrote:
I would just like to say that whether or not Christianity endorses free will or determinism via predestination is something that has been debated within Christianity through its entire history. Unfortunately for all the New Atheists that try to (with all seriousness) say that the concept of free will is fundamentally a religious idea, their assertion has no basis in history and is full of bunk given all the ink and curses that have been spilt over the topic. Apparently Calvin does not exist in their universal history, nor Luther's polemics against Dun Scotus over the question of free will. Honestly the question of free will is one of the worst questions ever and any real concerted effort to deal with whether there is or is not a free will is a true waste of time.
But these days the usual line is that we have free will so God didn't plan everything we do. As far as I can tell, this is largely because after some of the atrocities of the 20th century, most notably the Holocaust, it's really hard to believe in a completely determinist God any more. Whereas if we have free will, then God only created us with free will, and WE committed the atrocities.
|
And I just can't get with that way of dodging the real hard questions. Even if we were to take free will as a given, that by itself doesn't just magick away the problem of theodicy because it still begs the question as to why God didn't intervene at all to begin with and allowed such atrocities to occur. This also doesn't magick away natural disasters that are utterly and completely beyond human control yet still cause untold destruction and agony towards both the innocent and the human trash (the rain falls on both the just and the unjust). The question of free will on its own is unable to adequately deal with the questions of theodicy because there are always events that are just morally incomprehensible and completely beyond the realm of the will, and any apologia that tries to "save" the divine grace and "defend" God from being questioned for his intervention/nonintervention is fascile and more importantly, hubristic to the point of near blasphemy (as if God needs to be defended to begin with; as if you have the authority to save divine grace). The Book of Job illustrates this perfectly.
|
On September 27 2013 11:11 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 10:56 mizU wrote:
But God planned our choices too, did he not? Does him planning our choices affect how we choose?
??? Obviously it does
|
clearly Gods planning of our choices affects what we can choose.
If God drops you off in the middle of a field and you're starving and there's just apples and oranges around, clearly you can't choose a banana. There are always constraints on our choices in this way.
But how does this affect how we choose once put in the situation? Do the constraints of the situation always dictate which choice we make? How do we explain the person who chooses neither the apple nor the orange and instead chooses to fast for Gods glory even though he is starving?
also koreasilver; love your insight in threads like this, great points. I think the topic of free will is always an important one to have as it's one of the dividing lines between atheism and religious and is the root of many other harder or higher level discussions that might be had around the subject.
|
I think the topic of free will is always an important one to have as it's one of the dividing lines between atheism and religious
.............. the entire point of my post was to say that saying something like this is absolutely ignorant of the history of thought given that many foundational theological figures strenuously argued that there could not be a free will in front of an omnipotent, omniscient God. Of course there were also many other theologians that placed their bets entirely on the free will (such as Kierkegaard), and there are countless atheistic figures that also argued for the free will or just took the free will as a given. Saying that the issue of free will is a dividing line between atheism and the religious is so comically wrong, not just conceptually but also historically, so whenever I hear/read a New Atheist or a religious person say that I can only say that the fact that such a premise is accepted so easily is a cultural victory for the ignorant polemicists and demagogues.
Personally I don't think the concept of free will is worth arguing over at all given how it's a fruitless exercise. No one that is to be taken seriously thinks of free will in the sense of a naive free will that is absolutely free in a completely abstract sense. All notions of free will are some form of compatibilism, and just thinking about how much time and ink and paper has been spent on trying to prove or disprove this form of free will makes my head hurt considering just how many millenniums have gone through this topic without much satisfactory end-product. Of course at a point you have to either go for it or not to do theology at all in a consistent way, but in all practicality you simply go to ground yourself on it or not and just get on with it. It's about as pointless of an exercise as "proving" or "disproving" the "existence of God". You would do more productive intellectual work by shooting yourself in the face.
|
On September 27 2013 14:50 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +I think the topic of free will is always an important one to have as it's one of the dividing lines between atheism and religious .............. the entire point of my post was to say that saying something like this is absolutely ignorant of the history of thought given that many foundational theological figures strenuously argued that there could not be a free will in front of an omnipotent, omniscient God. Of course there were also many other theologians that placed their bets entirely on the free will (such as Kierkegaard), and there are countless atheistic figures that also argued for the free will or just took the free will as a given. Saying that the issue of free will is a dividing line between atheism and the religious is so comically wrong, not just conceptually but also historically, so whenever I hear/read a New Atheist or a religious person say that I can only say that the fact that such a premise is accepted so easily is a cultural victory for the ignorant polemicists and demagogues. Personally I don't think the concept of free will is worth arguing over at all given how it's a fruitless exercise. No one that is to be taken seriously thinks of free will in the sense of a naive free will that is absolutely free in a completely abstract sense. All notions of free will are some form of compatibilism, and just thinking about how much time and ink and paper has been spent on trying to prove or disprove this form of free will makes my head hurt considering just how many millenniums have gone through this topic without much satisfactory end-product. Of course at a point you have to either go for it or not to do theology at all in a consistent way, but in all practicality you simply go to ground yourself on it or not and just get on with it. It's about as pointless of an exercise as "proving" or "disproving" the "existence of God". You would do more productive intellectual work by shooting yourself in the face.
I don't disagree with you that discussions about free will with reasonable, thinking people are often of little practical use, moral or otherwise.
I do think, however, that discussions about free will with religious people who believe in a radical, contradictory, self-defeating species of free will can be fruitful insofar as they point out how non-sensical some of their views are, and how that can spiderweb into moral judgments and the like. This perspective could, of course, probably be gained by the fundamentalist Christians who like to start blogs and "bible-study" groups if they actually read and critically engaged with the ideas of the very smart Christian thinkers who came before them, rather than making it up as they go.
|
On September 28 2013 00:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 14:50 koreasilver wrote:I think the topic of free will is always an important one to have as it's one of the dividing lines between atheism and religious .............. the entire point of my post was to say that saying something like this is absolutely ignorant of the history of thought given that many foundational theological figures strenuously argued that there could not be a free will in front of an omnipotent, omniscient God. Of course there were also many other theologians that placed their bets entirely on the free will (such as Kierkegaard), and there are countless atheistic figures that also argued for the free will or just took the free will as a given. Saying that the issue of free will is a dividing line between atheism and the religious is so comically wrong, not just conceptually but also historically, so whenever I hear/read a New Atheist or a religious person say that I can only say that the fact that such a premise is accepted so easily is a cultural victory for the ignorant polemicists and demagogues. Personally I don't think the concept of free will is worth arguing over at all given how it's a fruitless exercise. No one that is to be taken seriously thinks of free will in the sense of a naive free will that is absolutely free in a completely abstract sense. All notions of free will are some form of compatibilism, and just thinking about how much time and ink and paper has been spent on trying to prove or disprove this form of free will makes my head hurt considering just how many millenniums have gone through this topic without much satisfactory end-product. Of course at a point you have to either go for it or not to do theology at all in a consistent way, but in all practicality you simply go to ground yourself on it or not and just get on with it. It's about as pointless of an exercise as "proving" or "disproving" the "existence of God". You would do more productive intellectual work by shooting yourself in the face. I don't disagree with you that discussions about free will with reasonable, thinking people are often of little practical use, moral or otherwise. I do think, however, that discussions about free will with religious people who believe in a radical, contradictory, self-defeating species of free will can be fruitful insofar as they point out how non-sensical some of their views are, and how that can spiderweb into moral judgments and the like. This perspective could, of course, probably be gained by the fundamentalist Christians who like to start blogs and "bible-study" groups if they actually read and critically engaged with the ideas of the very smart Christian thinkers who came before them, rather than making it up as they go.
Being a fundamentalist isn't a bad thing. It just means that one is embracing and practicing the basic truths that God gave us. How we display that is what can cause a lot of different perspectives toward the person. While I share my opinions of what I grew up to believe about different things in life, I try and use Scripture to back up my faith itself and some of the teachings that Christians were taught and called to do. Some people in this thread have an attitude toward me that reads, for example, "dude, be a christian, I don't care, just accept homosexuality because it makes people happy," and yet the Bible does not permit it (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27). So therefore I'm a horribly fundamental person who believes God's words to be true and infallible, and that God does not change, for the Bible says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" - Hebrews 13:8. If God never changes, neither do his words.
Many people dislike fundies (and i understand why) because they are generally viewed as adhering to one set of beliefs, strictly following it, and thus not embracing or "becoming friends" to the millions of other beliefs around the world. To the more extreme side, they become bible thumpers and tell people they are wrong in very harsh, arrogant ways. They're often seen as "close minded" and "anti intellectual" because they won't listen to others, respect their beliefs, or embrace other religions and integrate them into their faith. Probably the worst thing a Christian fundie could do is say "your way is wrong. my way is correct, and it's the only way to God." If you are referring to me at all in the underlined quote, I am talking about God's way, not my way. There is a huge difference.
God gave us the truth. He wants us to "hold tightly and firmly" to it.
"But you must remain faithful to the things you have been taught. You know they are true, for you know you can trust those who taught you. You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus." - 2 Timothy 3:14-15
"With all these things in mind, dear brothers and sisters, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the teaching we passed on to you both in person and by letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
What Paul means by these two verses is that in face of persecution, false teaching, worldliness, and apathy, we are to "hold on firmly to the truths of Jesus." Even Jesus told us to endure to the end through him when he was talking about the future, "Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers. And many will turn away from me and betray and hate each other. And many false prophets will appear and will deceive many people. Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Matthew 24: 9-13
|
The odd thing about the fundamentalist movement in America is that it's a reaction to a perceived corruption of so-called "fundamental" Christian beliefs by modern liberal society, and so they want to return things to the way they were in the past – but the past was never actually "fundamentalist" the way they perceive it. Whether we're talking early US history, or the Renaissance in Europe, or the Middle Ages, or even around the time of Jesus, society never existed in the form fundamentalists are trying to restore. Instead they've constructed a bizarre vision of what they think the past must have been like based on their reading of certain scriptures, when their reading of those scriptures is often entirely removed from how they have always been interpreted.
Take the bizarre practice of snake handling. Those scriptures from which these individuals draw were always interpreted metaphorically in the past; now, fundamentalists defend the practice by claiming it was practiced throughout society's religious past, and was only recently abandoned as Western society became secular and liberal.
The most infamous example of fundamentalism is the Westboro Baptist Church (in Florida, I believe?). OP, I understand you're inclined to defend fundamentalists, but I seriously doubt you're wanting to defend the WBC right now.
|
On September 28 2013 04:08 ChristianS wrote:
OP, I understand you're inclined to defend fundamentalists, but I seriously doubt you're wanting to defend the WBC right now.
I'm not defending fundamentalism in a way that I think we should put ashes on our head every time we recognize our sins, or perform certain practices that the early church did or even long before then. Those are lifestyles. What I am fundamental about is the basic truths and teachings that God gave us. Times have changed, I know this, and we have to integrate God's Word in our daily lives and culture in an acceptable way without destroying the context of those truths. In the study book I'm going through, titled Believing God, by Beth Moore, there is a five statement pledge of faith:
1) God is who he says he is
2) God can do what he says he can do
3) I am who God says I am
4) I can do all things through Christ
5) God's Word is alive and active in me
I am fundamental about the fact that as Christians, we ought to live by faith, not by sight or by being a good person. Faith is a gift from God that enables us to believe and understand who he is, and we are motivated to do good deeds and be a better person with a grateful heart because of what Jesus did for us. I love Jesus not because of the things I do, but because he first loved me and gave his life for me. We ought to continue trusting in God and his promises for us, and to hold tightly to what God says is true, right, honorable, and pleasing to him. In no way am I stating that we ought to live in the same way that people did between 100-3000 years ago.
|
On September 28 2013 02:00 IronManSC wrote:
Probably the worst thing a Christian fundie could do is say "your way is wrong. my way is correct, and it's the only way to God." If you are referring to me at all in the underlined quote, I am talking about God's way, not my way. There is a huge difference.
Can you not see how obviously flawed and subjective this is? Are you so brain-washed into whatever interpretation that you have, that you don't see how someone can say you are wrong? What you say is "god's way," someone else might call "your way." You can't just say "no, its not my way, its gods way, it says so in the bible." There are different interpretations of the bible, or anything written by someone else, ever. That is what this whole thread has been about. What you claim as "god's way" is another person's wrong way, and they believe that they know "god's way."
This is why religious discussions never go anywhere. Because everyone thinks that they have the correct interpretation of "god's way" and that "god is on their side," so no one ever agrees. And because they all have the exact same amount of scientific, objective information backing them (read: none), they quickly devolve into baseless arguments about why one interpretation of some dusty text is "correct" versus another interpretation.
|
On September 28 2013 04:24 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 04:08 ChristianS wrote:
OP, I understand you're inclined to defend fundamentalists, but I seriously doubt you're wanting to defend the WBC right now. 1) God is who he says he is
God speaks through "things" though, never directly. How does that rule make any sense with that in mind?
Also, it reminds me of this.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 28 2013 04:26 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 02:00 IronManSC wrote:
Probably the worst thing a Christian fundie could do is say "your way is wrong. my way is correct, and it's the only way to God." If you are referring to me at all in the underlined quote, I am talking about God's way, not my way. There is a huge difference.
Can you not see how obviously flawed and subjective this is? Are you so brain-washed into whatever interpretation that you have, that you don't see how someone can say you are wrong? What you say is "god's way," someone else might call "your way." You can't just say "no, its not my way, its gods way, it says so in the bible." There are different interpretations of the bible, or anything written by someone else, ever. That is what this whole thread has been about. What you claim as "god's way" is another person's wrong way, and they believe that they know "god's way." This is why religious discussions never go anywhere. Because everyone thinks that they have the correct interpretation of "god's way" and that "god is on their side," so no one ever agrees. And because they all have the exact same amount of scientific, objective information backing them (read: none), they quickly devolve into baseless arguments about why one interpretation of some dusty text is "correct" versus another interpretation.
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." - John 14:6
If Jesus himself, the Lord of all, says he is the only way to eternal life, and I come here saying that "Jesus is the only way," then how exactly does that become my way?
The problem is that most people believe in God, but they don't believe him or his words. People are so set in stone these days that most believe we are just put on earth to figure life out on our own and to figure out what is morally acceptable (beliefs included) as long as it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone else.
If you want to interpret it as "my way," then fine, I can't stop you.
|
Can you not see the disconnect between what you are saying and what you are doing? The very notion that one must cite a book of the Bible, complete with chapter and verse line, is a tacit admission that God is not doing all the talking here; that is why we must INTERPRET the Bible and act accordingly. Now, you can say that the Bible is God speaking, but then you must follow the words without question, something you've already said that you don't do. So which is it? Are the words of the Bible entirely literal and to be followed as sacrosanct, or are you going to admit that mortal men wrote those words, mortal men whose expressions are to be taken as distinctly separate from God himself?
|
I think it is absolutely necessary for anyone that reads scripture or claims to read scripture to be absolutely aware of, or at least be absolutely honest about, the fact that there is no simple reading of scripture in the sense that you can't just read scripture and take what is read as an absolute given. Paraphrasing Augustine, scripture is full of ambiguities and as such, every reading needs interpretation (or perhaps more penetratingly, is always interpretation). Now these exegetical problems should never prevent someone from reading and acting upon what is understood and should never be used as an excuse to endlessly defer acting under the pretense of trying to find the real truth of what scripture means (Kierkegaard), but even a literal reading of scripture is still a method of interpretation, and this is why fundamentalism is a misnomer - biblical literalism is neither a return to the "fundamentals" of scripture nor a way of cutting through interpretation, and it most certainly is not a return to the fundamentals of the early church fathers.
What makes so much of the posts here difficult to take seriously is that there's just no real hermenutic substance which causes all exegetical attempts to be very poor. You learn exegesis from the masters. If you are simply going to say "this is what this passage means" in a naive, baldfaced, and perhaps even arrogant way, without any hermeneutics, then I don't even know what to say.
|
I think the problem is that IronMan seems to think there is only one "correct" interpretation of the bible. Coincidentally, he happens to know that one "correct" interpretation: the one he was raised with.
How does he know it is the correct interpretation? The bible says so, obviously.
I'm not sure if he is capable of seeing the irony or circular logic of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
