03-22-2007, 04:20 PM | #21 | ||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
And you don't have to have independent control to be an audience. I might grab you by the wrists and physically force you to watch a movie, and that doesn't stop you being an audience member, even if you are an unwilling one. But God doesn't grab anyone by the wrists and force them to watch the movie- people do what they want. In that way, this comparison falls short. Quote:
Film develops while under control. Buildings develop while under human control. We plan it out beforehand, put our resources together and build it, but it develops. Of course humans can't develop humans, although they certainly can influence them a lot, but God is far above us, and his developing us doesn't mean we don't develop. The result of God's planning develops in fulfillment of that plan. There is no contradiction between God's planning and acting and development. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I may respond to the rest later. I have to go now.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
||||||
03-22-2007, 07:10 PM | #22 | |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
BTW, nuns are not peculiar to the Catholic Church. The Orthodox have them as well, as do the Anglicans and some Lutherans; I understand that there is also a Presbyterian monastic community out there somewhere. Basically, any community which has any deep sense of continuity with the Christian church of ages past will have monastics.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|
03-23-2007, 09:05 AM | #23 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
Explain to me one more time, as simply as possible, how one being can have complete control over another being and yet, at the same time, that being retains at least some control. And let me make clear, I have no issue if you wish to theorize that god has complete control over us. That's perfectly valid. As I said before, I also think the universe is deterministic at it's heart, I just don't put a "god" behind it. The problem comes in when a) you claim we still have some freedom and, b) you claim we still have some responsibility. The only way you can logically justify those claims is by saying that, due to our limited knowledge, we perceive that we have some freedom and some responsibility and thus act accordingly. (This is perfectly in line with determination, since our perceptions determine our actions.) But, since god does not have those same limitations (his perception of reality is perfect), it would be silly for him to make those same claims, since he knows they are not true.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
03-24-2007, 05:24 PM | #24 | |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
Quote:
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
|
03-24-2007, 06:57 PM | #25 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
whoa. Heavy.
Quote:
People on this topic are really wack. Everyone seems to have the list of who is a Christian, and what Christians believe. Any attempt to broaden that understanding is An assault on language, or other heavily loaded terms. Couldn't just be a difference of opinion, or nuffin'. Add this attitude to my list of 'Reasons i'm grateful i ain't got God's job.' |
|
03-24-2007, 07:38 PM | #26 |
Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA
Posts: 10,820
|
It's not a question of God's job. It's simply this: the meaning of a word comes from general consensus. If everyone were always tweaking words to make them mean what they wanted them to mean, then we wouldn't be able to understand one another. It is our duty, nay, our privilege () as beings capable of communicating with each other through language to not attempt to pervert language. If it were my opinion that the word elephant meant this:
I would simply be wrong. Why? Because the meaning of words comes from societal convention, and societal convention dictates otherwise. Now, I'm not exactly a fan of societal convention over all, but it is necessary to communicate through words.
__________________
Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle |
03-24-2007, 08:18 PM | #27 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
lol, Gwai. You can try that strict constructionist
Quote:
If you told me the pictured thing was an elephant, I'd travel along with you to see what point you wanted to make. If I didn't get it when we arrived, I might ask whether changing that definition helped. Probably it wouldn't. But, as a user of English, I'm already accustomed to seeing "elephant" used to describe at least 3 different species of living pachyderms, a kind of shrew, a variety of garlic, a baseball team, a type of jumble sale, a political party, and a kind of plant grown for its foliage, as well as an unpleasant reality no one wants to discuss. But this isn't about 'shared consensus'. This is specific to definitions around this debate, and it reflects a kind of rigidity that isn't grammatical. Today's Tarot card is the Hierophant. That's why I don't want God's job. |
|
03-25-2007, 12:01 AM | #28 | ||
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
While I agree with GW on the hippo, I think putting religion and consensus in the same light is an oxymoron. Plus, I'm with Humpty Dumpty on this one: Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
||
03-25-2007, 12:52 AM | #29 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
First of all, how do we make decisions? Different people make different decisions because they have different personalities. Every decision they make comes from within them, from their genetic make-up, from the nature of their souls, and from environmental influences. They make decisions based on who they are, in our everyday, real world experience. But this interpretation of real-world experience would suggest that we are controlled by who we are. So let's look at the alternative, that our personalities only present us with a set of options for us to choose between. But what, then, is left that chooses between the options, and on what does it make its decision? We've discounted that the natures of our souls, environmental influences and genetic make-up select the option we'll take. What and who we are, according to Free Will, doesn't determine the decision, for otherwise we wouldn't be "free." But if who we are doesn't determine how we will behave, if our decisions don't come from who we are, then "free will" is logically merely the freedom to be a non-entity. For if the decision doesn't come from us, then we aren't making our own decisions, and rather some kind of random-selection service makes our decisions. So we can't have "control" in the sense of choosing between multiple options. Because only one of the options is most in accord with who you are and that is the one you will pick. If you really had multiple options that you could choose between, then you wouldn't be you, because it wouldn't be you choosing (for all that makes up you, we have already said doesn't determine the decision), and all that is "you" is only one influence on some strange process that is foreign to you as you know yourself, and is making the decision for you. Or the selection between "choices" is random chance. That's the logical conclusion of "Free Will" according to the common definition, in my opinion. It's an intrinsically logically flawed idea. The same goes for God's "Free Will." He only has the freedom to be himself, just as we do, and doesn't have a set of options to choose from. He must make the choice according to his personality, just as we must, which means he is just being himself, as we are. And I say that on a lower level definition of freedom (but still more reasonable than the logical absurdity that is modern "Free Will"), this is freedom: to be able to be ourselves. To freely behave in accord with our personalities and with who we are. God's "control" and "predestination" do not limit us according to this definition of freedom. Sure, we do not have multiple options, so we don't have the modern conception of Free Will. We don't have this concept that modern people find desirable, because they haven't thought it through to its logical conclusion: randomization. The ultimate uncaring. We have the freedom to be ourselves though, and since ourselves are all that we are, where's the slavery in that? According to his personality and his freedom (by my low level definition of the word), God has created us and predestined us to do his will. However, that will doesn't keep us from being who we are, so we still have complete freedom- equal freedom to that which God has. We can be ourselves, and God can be himself, both predestined and both free.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 03-25-2007 at 12:55 AM. |
|
03-25-2007, 12:58 AM | #30 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." |
|
03-25-2007, 01:51 AM | #31 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wandering in circles until they become triangles
Posts: 292
|
Hello, name's Tuinor. I've been monitoring these debates over theology recently, and I'd like to state my beliefs concerning this matter on "Free Will".
I don't know if what I believe is true. I'd hope that if someone knows it isn't that they would tell me so, because I believe that Truth is God, and that to know Truth is to know God. So, like I said, this is just what I believe. I believe that God gave mankind free will. The reason why I can believe this and also believe that everything is in His control is because He knows us. Down to every last decision we may make in any concievable circumstance, He knows us. That's why He chose in the beginning to make Adam the first man, and Eve the first woman. He knew what decisions they'd make, as well as any decision any other human including you or I would make if we were in their position. That's whay He chose them. He saw the results of every other choice before they were even made, and He knew that Adam and Eve were the best. The same call could be made for the angels, including Lucifer. He knows everything. So He created us, gave us free will even though He knew what we would do with it. That's why I can accept that God exists despite all the evil going on. He gives everyone the ability to choose. Think of this somewhat like a pile of wood ready to be lit on fire. The fire-starter sees every angle and (if he's got a lot of experience or know-how) he finds the spot where the fire will grow the easiest and he starts it there. Now, God knows a lot more than the fire-maker, it that He knows exactly which particles will combust with every passing second even before He lights it. Thus He builds His fire pile, creation, and lights in the best possible spot. His fire is free will, and it is in all of us. True, we are each affected by the decisions others make, as well as they are affected by ones we make, but that is simply the way a fire works. The tongues flicker and jump from one place to another and the fire grows as it consumes more and more until the entire pile is blazing. Heat is the energy of motion, the energy of choice as it jumps from one place to another affecting everything it touches. No human mind can ever comprehend how many molecules the heat affects; nonetheless, they are affected, and the heat they give off affects others. It's beyond any of us, yet God knows and understands all of it. He started it in the beginning, and like a good fire builder when He sees it dying He stirrs it exposing new areas to the flame, and He adds new fuel to the fire. He works in creation, and He knows what He's doing and the effect it will have. That's how He is in control. Knowledge is power, after all. Yet, He does not make our choices for us, we are given that responsibitity. That shows how much He loves us. He gives us free will. This is what I believe. |
03-25-2007, 03:29 AM | #32 | ||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For instance, we wouldn't in an experiential way know what mercy means if we don't know what mercilessness is. And if we haven't experienced injustice, we don't know so well what justice is. If we haven't experienced sin, we wouldn't feel grace. So sin, evil and pain actually can produce good results, for without them, we wouldn't have as much depth as creations, or the ability to know God so well. The scripture says that a servant who is forgiven little loves little, while a servant who is forgiven much loves much. So couldn't one say that God's allowing or planning that evil temporarily exist would be valid, so that we can learn more about God and goodness (to me, the two are one and the same) through having experienced it? What are your thoughts on this? Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 03-25-2007 at 03:30 AM. |
||||
03-25-2007, 07:18 AM | #33 | |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Quote:
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
|
03-25-2007, 10:31 AM | #34 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
That said, there is still room for a true free will definition of reality as well. For example, there is if one assumes that god is extremely powerful and extremely knowledgeable, but not completely so. And by this I don't mean so much that there are things god does not know, just that there are things that can't be known because god created them that way. Looking back to quantum mechanics, we see the possibility of randomization at the most basic level. If one assumes that god created this factor in the universe, something even he can't completely control, yet knows how to influence, there is room for both his caring and our free will. It's like when parents have a child. They have near absolute control over this child's upbringing, and know that certain actions will lead to that child developing in certain ways. But, for any of us who have had multiple children, we realize that there is a certain random factor that, while shapeable, is not 100% controllable. In fact, one could say that this element of unknown is where loving and caring stem from. If we knew exactly how our children would turn out, we wouldn't worry about them, or do any more or less than was required by our foreknowledge. But it's that very element of randomess that must be shaped which keeps us so intent upon our children's well-being.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
03-25-2007, 11:25 AM | #35 | ||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Back when I believed in Free Will, I always said that it was the soul, and that genetics, environment, personality and all the rest are all just influences on the decision-making process that did not determine the decision. But if they don't determine the decision in any given choice, what does? Quote:
Randomization is not caring. It shows complete uncaring, utter indifference to the outcome. Which doesn't make sense to me, as part of the nature of a God of Love. You also are trying to assume a God with limited knowledge and power. That's fine for you to do, of course, but it isn't Christianity, so it doesn't affect me and what I will believe, though I may still discuss it with you just for the sake of the intellectual pursuit . Quote:
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 03-25-2007 at 11:33 AM. |
||||
03-25-2007, 12:30 PM | #36 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
The problem you have here is
Quote:
Do you know the purpose of Creation, Leif? I don't know why you couldn't assume a God who, just for the novelty, decided to play solitaire without checking the deck first. If you believe God took on human flesh, He clearly was able to accept limitations in service of His ends, whatever they may be. Why not suppose He accepted limits on His foreknowledge, or His power? Or maybe the creation of Mankind (as you seem to believe that humans are subject to different rules of play than other creatures) was just an elaborate bet...in the style of the trials of Job, but much larger scale. The whole Bible is full of God testing people. Pretty malicious behavior if He already knew/was controlling the outcome. |
|
03-25-2007, 01:33 PM | #37 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
03-25-2007, 05:07 PM | #38 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
I'd like it if you responded to my post 29 . I know it wasn't addressed to you, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on my critique, there, of the modern concept of Free Will.
__________________
If the world has indeed, as I have said, been built of sorrow, it has been built by the hands of love, because in no other way could the soul of man, for whom the world was made, reach the full stature of its perfection. ~Oscar Wilde, written from prison Oscar Wilde's last words: "Either the wallpaper goes, or I do." Last edited by Lief Erikson : 03-25-2007 at 05:14 PM. |
|
03-25-2007, 06:46 PM | #39 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 3,514
|
... wonder what BJ thinks?
|
03-25-2007, 07:15 PM | #40 | ||||
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
Quote:
As I mentioned before, a big part of love is co-dependence and mutual appreciation, and that can only truely develop between minds which must discover in order to understand one another. It's the difference between loving a story you wrote and loving your mother or father. Quote:
While I may be limiting god's knowledge (though I'd frame it as god setting limits about what he wishes to be able know about some of his creations), you are limiting his power by implying that he can not create a being which can act in even the smallest way free from god's influence. Quote:
Read this article if you get the chance (it's short ).
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
||||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Science | ayarella | General Messages | 804 | 04-13-2012 09:05 PM |
muslims PART 2 | Spock | General Messages | 805 | 02-03-2011 03:16 AM |
Theological Opinions | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 992 | 02-10-2006 04:15 PM |
REAL debate thread for RELIGION | Ruinel | General Messages | 1439 | 04-01-2005 02:47 PM |
Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread | RÃan | General Messages | 2289 | 01-08-2004 02:31 AM |