In the Beginning…
Two of the most basic concepts of Christianity that hold true across denominations is the dual idea that God is both Good (God is Love) and that God is Perfect (omnipotent, omniscient, always has a plan). A fine assertion but one that encounters some minor resistance when compared to the state of the world. Take a look around, does this look like the world a perfect nice guy would make? I’m not trying to insult you world but you’re kind of a mess.
Something went wrong at some point didn’t it?
Or did it? Why did the Garden of Eden include a Tree with the Fruit of Temptation? Why was the possibility of Fall a neccessary part of the Garden? The Islamics would tell you that all happens because Allah wills it to be so.
You might want to read Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan, who discusses the story and it's metaphors at considerable length. Adam and Eve don't really become characters until the Fall. As Sagan writes, the price of consciousness is the loss of innocence. Read the passage in Genesis about what exactly happens when the fruit is consumed. "And the scales were lifted from their eyes and they beheld their nakedness." Eden is a story that popular expression tends to strip much of the complexity from, and perhaps that simplification means we don't get the lessons from Genesis that we should be getting.
I actually pointed out the Islamic view myself when I reasked the question further down the thread. I understand that point of view and it makes sense to me. I'm actually pointing to a very particular concept in the story I don't understand.
Ok adding it to the list of readables, thank you kindly.
Actually the other funny thing about the story is when God sees them wearing clothes he asks why. Is God not aware of what transpired or is he doing that weird thing parents sometimes do to their kids where they ask them if they brushed their teeth when the parent knows they didn't just to see if the kid will lie. Neither really makes sense, one implies God doesn't know whats happening and the other just seems...passive aggressive.
A circular argument is not a good argument but it is one of the strongest.
It's also a logical fallacy. Q: How do I know God's good? A: Because it says so in the Bible. Q: Why should I believe what the Bible says? A: Because the Bible was written through the divine inspiration of God, and he's good.
Unless I accept both the premise and the conclusion, which itself is merely a premise masquerading as a conclusion, to be true, a circular argument holds no weight.
|
Actually you know what the biggest point I should have made a bit ago in defense of the idea of blame and guilt being an integral part of much of common Christianity but for some reason it slipped my mind?Hell.
Explain that in a system were condemnation doesn't play a heavy role.
As I mentioned earlier heaven is talked about 20x more often than hell in the Bible, and out of it's 13 mentions, 9 of them are basically saying "you don't want to go there".
In our culture, Dante's Inferno is the generally accepted view of hell - which I think is partially based off of the book of Enoch (which note, also isn't in the Bible).
On an interesting side note, one of the more interesting arguments inside of Christianity in my opinion is on whether people in Hell will be eternally destroyed (cease to exist) or eternally go through the process of being destroyed (tormented).
Another interesting note, is that according to parts of Christianity theology, people from other religions can make it into Christian heaven (basically saying Jesus will accept their following of their own religion as having been to himself), (C.S. Lewis is probably the most notable person to espouse this approach) - and that's not even coming from Universalist Christians who basically say that everyone will be saved (and only some extreme cases will be sent to hell, like the antichrist, Satan, etc.)
The Bible never tells us the proportion of people that will go to heaven or hell, so their are all sorts of views on how many people are going where, possible reasons behind that being something like "If we know that almost everyone is going to heaven, why bother trying to be really good" or "If almost everyone is going to hell, just live your life the way you want to since you don't really have a chance of getting into heaven"
I think I got a bit off-topic there :) So, basically in basic Christian theology hell isn't very important, it exists but it's a side note. Pastors and various people throughout the ages, however, have enjoyed talking about hell because it's an "exciting" topic that has pretty much always been popular for common people to hear about.
Oh, and God does that funny parenting thing :P (I'll name a few more examples off the top of my head: Peter denying Jesus, Jesus Asking the Woman at the well about her husband, Ananias and Sapphira (especially Sapphira).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed a post and some replies to it. We try to be pretty tolerant of different viewpoints around here, but it must be done civilly.
If you're pushing the boundaries just to see how far you can go, you're not being honest, you're being a jerk.
Anewor
It does often seem that Hell and it’s state of being are not something God is particularly interested in warning us about so perhaps the emphasis on it being such a threat comes primarily from the human side.
Catholicism is an interesting one because it is widely considered to be pretty harsh about Hell but actually there are a lot of provisions about God judging you based on your understandable circumstances, for instance it is actually harder to go to Hell if you were never a Christian because you never accepted the truth than rejected it. The more aware you are of what is happening the greater your responsibility.
What exactly an individual Christian suspects is the ratio in the “numbers game” of how many people go to Heaven VS Hell often seems to directly correlate with how peaceful they are in life and with the people around them. I’ve known Christians who have lost sleep fretting about the state of their immortal soul and those of the people around them they care deeply for and feel responsible for and on the other side people like my parents that think that Hell is really only a place for those who actively champion evil so that they rest easy knowing everything is ok for the all the lost souls of the world.
Hehe yeah God does seem to do that parenting thing a lot, not sure why. Maybe to try and teach people just how silly it is to lie to him? Lying to yourself is ridiculous, lying to God is just outright loony toons.
If, however, the individual's decisions are predetermined in order to force a sequence of events (as with Judas, or Lucifer and his 33.3% of Heaven), then Free Will does not exist; while #2 is present, #1 is not--no matter what choice I think I make, God has chosen for me in order to fulfill His plan--Judas (I think he is the best example) had to betray Christ, or the Crucifixion couldn't have happened; the Crucifixion had to happen in order to fulfill God's plan.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your points, so feel free to correct me. I was with you right up until you said Judas didn't have the free will to do otherwise. Isn't it just as likely (and maybe moreso) that God chose Judas BECAUSE he knew what decisions Judas would make?
If someone has already asked this and I missed it, feel free to simply point me back to the post.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If, however, the individual's decisions are predetermined in order to force a sequence of events (as with Judas, or Lucifer and his 33.3% of Heaven), then Free Will does not exist; while #2 is present, #1 is not--no matter what choice I think I make, God has chosen for me in order to fulfill His plan--Judas (I think he is the best example) had to betray Christ, or the Crucifixion couldn't have happened; the Crucifixion had to happen in order to fulfill God's plan.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your points, so feel free to correct me. I was with you right up until you said Judas didn't have the free will to do otherwise. Isn't it just as likely (and maybe moreso) that God chose Judas BECAUSE he knew what decisions Judas would make?If someone has already asked this and I missed it, feel free to simply point me back to the post.
I think that's essentially the same thing.
If we both agree on the definition of God, that God is omnipotent and omniscient; and we both agree that the Bible is the Word of God, that it is God's Plan for humankind, then God knowing the choice I will make is only semantically different from God making the choice for me (or compelling me to a certain choice, or designing me to make certain choices, or even choosing me because I am known to make certain types of choices given certain circumstances).
Let's say God's Plan calls for my cup of coffee to be spilled by someone across my desk at exactly the twelfth stroke of noon. Let's say that I have been told of this Plan. Theoretically, I could choose to be somewhere else than my desk--say across town, even--and thwart the Plan. Let's say that on that day, I'm the absolute only one in the office, and there's no chance of another person coming to the office at noon and spilling my coffee, but just in case, I lock my door and remove all liquids from the room, and put the coffee cups and coffee pot in my car. let's even say that my coffee pot was the only one in the building. Catastrophe averted, right?
But there's a Biblical catch-22: God's Plan is inviolate. No matter what, that coffee will be spilled by someone.
If I'm the only someone (or anyone else is the only someone--the name isn't really important until we start talking about Jewish numerology), and God's Plan is 100%, then I have no choice in my actions; they are by definition scripted.
A circular argument is not a good argument but it is one of the strongest.It's also a logical fallacy. Q: How do I know God's good? A: Because it says so in the Bible. Q: Why should I believe what the Bible says? A: Because the Bible was written through the divine inspiration of God, and he's good.
Unless I accept both the premise and the conclusion, which itself is merely a premise masquerading as a conclusion, to be true, a circular argument holds no weight.
As a logical argument no. As an argument and rationale to people I have to say yes, simply because i see it used so often.
Wow apparently Andrew is just way better at illustrating the problem of an Omnipotent God shifting responsibility for bad things to mortals than I am.
Andrew Turner <- - - listen to this guy!
@ Andrew:
So you're functionally saying that if I learn how to leverage your personality, motivations, desires, and experiences to get my desired outcome, that you no longer have any choice in the decisions I set before you? Does this basically say that savvy, manipulative people negate free will? And doesn't it ultimately say we're not responsible for our own actions?
My world experience tells me otherwise, and from what I can tell the Bible supports it.
I realize it's a bit more complicated than that, as the Bible indicates that He is responsible for every person uniquely. But once you're created, you are not only formed from those things God built into you, but you're also formed by the influence of the world. And the Bible cites multiple examples of how people in the world acted counter to God's desires. The Israel Nation throughout the Old Testament is the first example to comes to mind.
You say the only difference is semantics, but I'd argue that it's just as much about intention. Does the Bible say He is all-powerful and everything is within His might? Yes. Does it also show example after example of people making choices that God is obviously disappointed, frustrated, or out-right angry about? Yes.
The only conclusion I know to draw is that while He is capable of forcing His will on us, He is interested in us making the right decision for ourselves.
But there's a Biblical catch-22: God's Plan is inviolate. No matter what, that coffee will be spilled by someone.
I'd say if God set this event to happen and revealed it to you, and you went to such an extent to keep it from happening, then yes, something would still come up that would change the scenario and would allow for God's Plan to be realized. And I would suggest that -- despite your best efforts -- it can happen without God forcing someone's hand. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? Nope, and the Bible gives example of just this. Jonah and the whale. Jonah chose what Jonah wanted to do over and over… God's plan still happened, and it happened without forcing Jonah's choice, merely by changing his circumstance in order to show Jonah God's sovereignty.
As to Judas, again, I don't buy that his was just the illusion of choice. I believe that Judas made the decision that he did because it was what he thought needed to or should happen. His selfish greed won out over whatever love he had for Christ in the moment. There's something telling about the fact that Judas hung himself afterwards.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Andrew:
So you're functionally saying that if I learn how to leverage your personality, motivations, desires, and experiences to get my desired outcome, that you no longer have any choice in the decisions I set before you? Does this basically say that savvy, manipulative people negate free will? And doesn't it ultimately say we're not responsible for our own actions?
No, because you're not God.
As a quick aside, it's interesting to note that Sam Harris has some fascinating arguments indicating that, indeed, a savvy and manipulative person could influence my choices beyond my reasoned ability to otherwise choose a thing on my own. There's some solid scientific data to support this; fMRI research is very telling. But back on topic--
For example: I know that my eldest daughter is a huge fan of chocolate, more so than any other sweet, and less a fan of circus peanuts. I'm reasonably certain, all other things equal, that if I give her an Easter basket of Peeps, mallow eggs, hard candy, and Dove chocolates, she'll go for the chocolates first and the mallow eggs last. I didn't influence her decision beyond providing several choices (and let's leave out genetics or social conditioning, which may have something to do with her desire for chocolate)--she seemingly chose the chocolates on her own. This is a physicalist argument, but you could impose an epiphenomenal state and make the choices more mental or values-based and get the same net result.
Remember, my definition of God is that's He "is omnipotent and omniscient", and that "the Bible is the Word of God, that it is God's Plan for humankind...". More on that after your next set of remarks.
My world experience tells me otherwise [cf. above], and from what I can tell the Bible supports it.
I realize it's a bit more complicated than that, as the Bible indicates that He is responsible for every person uniquely. But once you're created, you are not only formed from those things God built into you, but you're also formed by the influence of the world. And the Bible cites multiple examples of how people in the world acted counter to God's desires. The Israel Nation throughout the Old Testament is the first example to comes to mind.
You say the only difference is semantics, but I'd argue that it's just as much about intention. Does the Bible say He is all-powerful and everything is within His might? Yes. Does it also show example after example of people making choices that God is obviously disappointed, frustrated, or out-right angry about? Yes.
The only conclusion I know to draw is that while He is capable of forcing His will on us, He is interested in us making the right decision for ourselves.
Yet, God knew they were going to act that way before they were ever born (Jeremiah 1:5, though speaking specifically of one of the Prophets, this is generally understood to apply to all Creation). Anthropomorphically speaking, it's hard to reconcile Him being angry. If I cut my arm, I'm certain to bleed and feel some pain--yet I'm surprised and angry when that actually comes to pass? But that's another argument.
But there's a Biblical catch-22: God's Plan is inviolate. No matter what, that coffee will be spilled by someone.
I'd say if God set this event to happen and revealed it to you, and you went to such an extent to keep it from happening, then yes, something would still come up that would change the scenario and would allow for God's Plan to be realized. And I would suggest that -- despite your best efforts -- it can happen without God forcing someone's hand. Improbable? Yes. Impossible? Nope, and the Bible gives example of just this., and it happened without forcing Jonah's choice, merely by changing his circumstance in order to show Jonah God's sovereignty.
This is the center of gravity for my argument against religious-based Free Will. You've just said it: I bolded the relevant remarks above. There is nothing, nothing Jonah could do or have done to make his own way. His path was scripted; his Free Will an illusion.
As to Judas, again, I don't buy that his was just the illusion of choice. I believe that Judas made the decision that he did because it was what he thought needed to or should happen.
This would seem to indicate a belief by Judas that he had no Free Will (or at least that his course was pre-determined, which is semantics, really); also, a kind of post-modern 'do a greater good by perpetrating a lesser evil', which might exonerate the chap in much the same way Milton comes to exonerate Lucifer. Again, that's another argument.
His selfish greed won out over whatever love he had for Christ in the moment. There's something telling about the fact that Judas hung himself afterwards.
This might look at first glade to be an attempt to force his own Free Will, but the suicide and purchase of Potter's Field is part of the Prophecy, making it an Ordained event.
Also, in the Gospel of Judas (one of those banned Gospels they deliberately excluded in Nicene), he doesn't kill himself. There's also this interesting piece from the Book of Acts, which indicates Judas was somehow disemboweled while walking through a field. Again, another argument for later.
I'll say again, God's Plan called for the crucifixion. It's actually a very explicit set of events that must be played out exactly. If it hadn't been Judas (betraying Christ), it would have been someone else, and because God had ordained the event, it couldn't possibly have been a real choice to betray, much like Jonah could not circumvent God's Plan in your example above.
Andrew makes a compelling argument that Judas was simply fulfilling the destiny God set down for him yes? So blame and guilt really shouldn't enter into it correct?
Matthew 26:24 "For the Son of Man must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago. But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him. It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!"
|
|
If I set in front of you three balls and ask you to pick one.
If there are three futures all of which exist (i.e. multiple universes theory). In each Universe, you pick a separate ball. But, my future self exists in only one of these three Universes. You decide which of the three Universes my future self will exist in.
If I know the alternate future I will exist in.
Does that mean that you don't have free will?
I'm sorry, DW, please rephrase; I don't understand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He wants you to play with his balls.
|
@ Andrew:
So you're functionally saying that if I learn how to leverage your personality, motivations, desires, and experiences to get my desired outcome, that you no longer have any choice in the decisions I set before you? Does this basically say that savvy, manipulative people negate free will? And doesn't it ultimately say we're not responsible for our own actions?
A savvy, manipulative person, acting alone? No, he wouldn't negate free will.
What he could do, given enough time, and enough resources, and enough accomplices (either ones he starts with, or accumulates along the way), is control people's ability to have accurate information to base any of their decisions on.If you live under an autocratic regime, who control all aspects of the media, and anyone who questions their version of the truth disappears overnight, then how are you supposed to make correct, informed, moral decisions?
For the argument on a person manipulating free will, See Here
Judas Iscariot, whatever, what really pisses me off in The Bible is the plagues of Egypt where, at least in King James it appears that Pharoah would've let the Hebrews go if God wasn't such a gloryhound.
So every firstborn in Egypt had to die just so that the Jews would remember the acts of the Lord? What chutzpah!
Actually blame and guilt are irrelevant. Under this idea Judas Iscariot was fulfilling the path written for him in his destiny. Which includes both his crime AND his punishment.Andrew makes a compelling argument that Judas was simply fulfilling the destiny God set down for him yes? So blame and guilt really shouldn't enter into it correct?
Blame and guilt may be seem irrelevant to his destiny but they are not irrelevant to the tone it carries over into much of Christianity, which is really what I'm getting at, that the tone is confusing given what seems to be happening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the argument on a person manipulating free will, See Here
You know what I think is funny about that story? Gordon may remain sane (if you call not putting down a hopeless lunatic that will simply escape again soon and kill again sane) but isn't Batman himself the result of a guy that had one really bad day?
Judas Iscariot, whatever, what really pisses me off in The Bible is the plagues of Egypt where, at least in King James it appears that Pharoah would've let the Hebrews go if God wasn't such a gloryhound.
So every firstborn in Egypt had to die just so that the Jews would remember the acts of the Lord? What chutzpah!
Yes, it also actually says God hardens pharaoh's heart when deciding whether to let the Hebrews go. But wait, if God is the one keeping the Hebrews in Egypt why rip the Egyptians such a new one? As a teaching to the Hebrews? I guess in this case their lives really are worth more to God than that of the Egyptians.
For the argument on a person manipulating free will, See HereYou know what I think is funny about that story? Gordon may remain sane (if you call not putting down a hopeless lunatic that will simply escape again soon and kill again sane) but isn't Batman himself the result of a guy that had one really bad day?
Yes.
And Batman chooses to use his insanity for good, despite being the second craziest person in Gotham city.
For the argument on a person manipulating free will, See HereYou know what I think is funny about that story? Gordon may remain sane (if you call not putting down a hopeless lunatic that will simply escape again soon and kill again sane) but isn't Batman himself the result of a guy that had one really bad day?Yes.
And Batman chooses to use his insanity for good, despite being the second craziest person in Gotham city.
Lol. Agreed.
In fact one of the claims of the Gnostics, was that Jesus was the God of Love whose great enemy was the God of Law of the Old Testament.
Ah, Marcionism! Put that in a pot with the Book of Enoch and let simmer for 1800 years; Now that's a religion I'd like to see.
The God of the Old Testament is big on punishment out of proportion to the crime. A bunch of kids make fun of the prophet Elijah's beard. God sends a bunch of kids to tear them to bits.
Wasn't it bears or something? You said kids but I realize it was prolly just a misspeak.
Check out Tim Minchin whose best ever song lyric (of a bunch of superb song lyrics) runs
"so if you can take some time off from your usual stunt, of being a racist, sexist, murderous [expletive deleted]..."
The God of the Old Testament is a genocidal, narcissistic, schizoid personality that just doesn't jive with the New Testament's God of Love, Peace, and Forgiveness. God suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder, if you want to say they're one and the same.
That Love, Peace, and Forgiveness guy is also the one that introduced eternal torture to the milieu. The Jewish god was no great humanitarian by any stretch, but once you were dead he was generally done with you.
The God of the Old Testament is a genocidal, narcissistic, schizoid personality that just doesn't jive with the New Testament's God of Love, Peace, and Forgiveness. God suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder, if you want to say they're one and the same.That Love, Peace, and Forgiveness guy is also the one that introduced eternal torture to the milieu. The Jewish god was no great humanitarian by any stretch, but once you were dead he was generally done with you.
Samnell is correct. On a interesting side note about this it seems to be a common Christian belief that Christianity is simply the logical next step in the religious evolution of Judaism and that the Jews simply "missed the boat" in not realizing that Jesus was the Messiah.
I myself held this belief for awhile before I received a slightly better education and learned that not only is this idea wrong, it can come off as pretty offensive. Christianity both adds some belief elements and subtracts others from the parent faith it uses as a base and ends up being almost entirely it's own thing in the end.
Is it bad that I want to do a parody of genesis where God is a gm who spent a week working on a campaign and Adam and Eve are players?
Adam: There are so many creatures that you've created, but I'm the only player.
* and so God ripped off a piece of Adam's character sheet and created one for Eve*
God: in the center there's a tree of knowledge, but don't eat the fruit from it
* after Adam and Eve ate the apples*
God: you realize you're naked
Adam & Eve: What!?
I'm sorry if my blasphemy insults anyone...
I'm sorry if my blasphemy insults anyone...
Sounded like the start of a good parody to me.