03-27-2007, 06:49 PM | #61 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 3,514
|
Lief:
Quote:
The North wind icily howls from it's numbness. The south wind merely sighs - ...The east wind we do not ask tidings of. Last edited by Butterbeer : 03-27-2007 at 06:53 PM. Reason: Brevity permits me not to mention! |
|
03-27-2007, 09:39 PM | #62 | |||||||
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
The problem I have with your "everything is predestined, including god" point of view is that it makes the existence of god rather unnecessary or, at best, makes him a non-creator. If no intelligent being is making real choices about reality, and I'm not talking about the pseudo-choices you call "choosing to be ourselves", then the ultimate mover and shaker is what we call nature. Matter and energy come together in some ordered way to form this predestined god who creates this predestined universe. And, at that point, you might as well jump into the scientist's boat and take god out of the picture, since he is an unneccesary step in the progression. I know it's a bit out of nature for me to be arguing for god, but for god to have any real umph!, there's got to be some logical transcendence. Quote:
The meaning is in the discovery of knowledge, not in the possession of it. Quote:
They believe that the hero had the choice to either attack the enemy or run. And you can bet that if we knew the hero had no real choice (i.e. his captain threatened to shoot him in the back if he ran), we might have a harder time thinking of him as a hero in the same way. Humans don't praise things they know will happen. They praise things that surprise them, and the greater the surprise, the greater the praise. Quote:
Quote:
You are right that we would probably not call it bondage either. We might simply call it the progression of the universe, over which no intelligent being or diety has control. It simply happens this way. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|||||||
03-27-2007, 10:35 PM | #63 | ||||
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wandering in circles until they become triangles
Posts: 292
|
Quote:
Quote:
Tell me, are you suggesting (not that it's wrong, especially in a debate) that humans have no souls? Or are you saying that what we percieve as a soul is simply genetic data that determines our personalities? It appears that you are headed in this direction. I could be wrong, though, and I don't want to assume anything. Quote:
As I said before, I believe in Free Will. I think that whatever choice I make is because I make it for whatever reason drives me. However, like I also said before, I believe that God knows all the choices that will or will not be made. That being said, in a sense we are somewhat predestined, but not because we are trapped and have no control. On the contrary, we are predestined because we have total control. I know it doesn't easily make sense, but look back at the analogy of the fire. It's a simple choice on God's part were to start Creation, but when He does, it grows and takes on a life of it's own. And though God may interfere, He cannot (or perhaps I should say "will not", since I do believe God is capable of anything) control it. He's not Pyro from X-Men, though He could be if He wanted. No, He is simply a camper wanting some warmth and firelight. See, what it's coming down to is that final question that drives all of humanity, whether we realize it or not. "Why am I here?" It's a bit difficult to answer, but I think I can say why God made us. In all honesty, I think that all He wanted was a friend. He doesn't need servants, He's got angels besides being all powerfull. He doesn't need wealth; the streets of heaven are said to be paved with gold for crying out loud. He doesn't need praise; He could make the trees sing to Him of His glory if He wants. What I'm getting at is that God made humans for a simple purpose: relationship. He wanted someone to talk to, to treat as an equal (I said it, now come take me away, religion police) . He wanted a friend to walk side by side with Him; not in reverance before Him or in shame behind Him. And, ultimately, that is what He plans to achive through Christ. That is what I believe. Quote:
Last edited by Tuinor : 03-27-2007 at 10:39 PM. |
||||
03-27-2007, 11:37 PM | #64 | |||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Your "real choices" aren't real choices at all, since we don't make them. But also, all that they add which predestination doesn't have is the possibility of our not being ourselves. But if we can not be ourselves, what are we? You see the problem? Quote:
Quote:
And when you abandon the book, you aren't abandoning your understanding of the book but rather the vehicle to that understanding. You have the understanding, so you don't need the "discovery" any more. As soon as you forget the book's contents, or lose the understanding, then you go back and discover again. Because discovery leads to the understanding that you delight in. Quote:
Predestination says the decision of the hero comes from himself and is in accord with who he is, so he is still to be honored. His personality is superior in this way to other personalities which would not have acted in that way. So his act was still a superior act. He acted in accord with his own identity, but his identity is shown to be really, really cool, so we thank him and appreciate him. Quote:
I'll respond to the rest of your post a bit later. EDIT: Done!
__________________
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 : 03-28-2007 at 01:46 AM. |
|||||
03-28-2007, 12:09 AM | #65 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol
Posts: 3,114
|
Originally Posted by brownjenkins
I know it's a bit out of nature for me to be arguing for god, but for god to have any real umph!, there's got to be some logical transcendence. There, proof of His existence! BJ arguing for the necessity of God on logical grounds!!! And to think I have lived to see this day! Glory be!
__________________
Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941 |
03-28-2007, 01:44 AM | #66 | |||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
So understanding is the root. Discovery is the way of reaching beautiful understanding. Quote:
Quote:
When one submits oneself to God and he takes the throne in our lives, he breaks all kinds of addictions and sins. Sins of all kinds can gain power over us and reduce us to slavery so that we have no choice but to bend to those sins. Alcoholism, greed, materialism, sex, rage, etc. are many different kinds of sins that can all gain power over us and which, after they do, we do not control. We are then slaves to sin, bound to sin without having freedom to be ourselves, but bound to do what is sinful. Submission to God frees us from sin and makes us what Paul calls "slaves to righteousness." Christ banishes sin and it no longer controls us. Wealth cannot control us. Sex cannot control us. Wealthy or poor, we are content and at rest in Christ. With sex or without it, we are content and in Christ. In good condition or in ruthless persecution, with alcohol or without it, we are joyful in Christ. We control alcohol then, sex, wealth and all the rest. They do not control us. In Christ, all sins that keep us from having the freedom to be our true selves, the selves God intended that we be, are stripped away and we can truly be ourselves by fully submitting to Christ's will and doing it always. It is very glorious, and actually you'll find that Christians who believe in predestination and Christians who believe in free will both believe in this kind of freedom- freedom that comes through complete submission to God's will. That's the incredible irony I find with the position of Christians who argue for free will. While they argue with all their might for a freedom that consists of freedom from God's will, they simultaneously strive to become more and more like Christ, to have him as absolute ruler in their lives, and to have his will ceaselessly done in their lives. *Shakes his head.* It's really incredibly ironic. They've got their scripture right as regards sanctification and becoming like Christ, and many of them are very, very in tune with his nature, know his will, have him dominating them fully with his righteousness and seek to come closer always. Yet with all that experience of the glory of submission, they are adamant about "Free Will" existing. It's really an incredible irony. Quote:
Quote:
We can love people without understanding them fully, but we love them because of what we do understand of them. If I couldn't see, I wouldn't understand what my acquaintances looked like. If I couldn't hear, feel or smell either, or have any of my senses, I couldn't love the people around me for I wouldn't know they were there. Each level of understanding I have, the ability to understand the language, the ability to see the person's physical appearance and body language . . . all of these are different aspects of understanding that can create love, and the more of them we have, depending on what we find the people are themselves like, we love them. We do not love based upon the discovering process, for if that were the case, we would love everybody. The fact is that some people hate certain other people. This fact shows that discovery itself does not create love. It is what you discover, or what you understand of what you discover, that creates love or hate, depending on the object and not on the process, depending on what is understood and not on the way we come to understand. If you are mature in Christ, you can come to love everyone because Christ's love flows through you, in which case it is understanding of Christ that creates the love, as well as perhaps loving the beauty of his creation, which also is the result of understanding the beauty of his creation. Indeed, a close personal relationship with God is central to the development of agape, sacrificial love, rather than only natural human love. I also disagree with sisterandcousinandaunt's claim that we should love people for their negative qualities. We can love people and not love all the things they do, or all of their personality traits. For example, if I had a wife who was sleeping around with all the men in the neighborhood, I would not love her for this negative quality. I would still love her as a person, but I would not love this quality. Loving this quality should not be necessary for one to love the person. Otherwise it shows a complete acceptance for evil as well as for good, and by accepting evil, we do evil. The same goes for drugs. If I had a wife who was heavily addicted to drugs, I would be doing her a big favor and a great act of love if I convinced her that they were bad for her and then assisted her as she escaped the addiction. By sisterandcousinandaunt's model, we should instead be accepting her activities without ever saying a word against it. If we were to take this perception of love and go by it, we would commit a lot of evil. We would never train our children, but would instead love them as they are. And as we love them as they are, for lack of training and parental discipline they would turn out as nasty, egotistical little brats. We train our children because we love them. We teach them not to do bad things or learn harmful habits because we love them, and they benefit a lot from that teaching.
__________________
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 : 03-28-2007 at 01:46 AM. |
|||||
03-28-2007, 10:09 AM | #67 | |||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
You're out of your depth, Lief.
Addiction
This makes it sound as though accepting God was the instant cure for addiction. It's not. In AA-style 12 step programs it's considered an essential first step, but it's not all the steps. Quote:
Perception is different from appreciation. Squirrels clearly have fun in the trees, but they do that without "understanding gravity" in any way that reasonable adults would agree on. This sentence is absurd. Quote:
This is not love, this is ego. I hope, when and if the time comes that you're a parent, you can tell the difference. It will matter to your children. Quote:
This is not only wrong, it's offensively wrong. It implies that people who cannot hear the loved one, for example, are doomed to love them less thereby. Or people without "understanding" would have less love. Any experience of special needs people makes clear, that while there may be many things understanding is good for, it isn't necessary to love. Just ego again, (nearing idolatry, almost) elevating a characteristic you think you have to the essential characteristic. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
03-28-2007, 10:25 AM | #68 | |||
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
I'll address one of the more important points you seem to be missing consistantly, and try to get to the rest later.
Quote:
Quote:
All you are saying is that we are free to act as we were designed to act, which is not freedom at all. You said about the hero: Quote:
Basically, unless you have the ability to act in ways that were not predestined, or planned, by a creator, there are no decisions. To "decide" means you can make different choices. If you can only make one decision, you are not free. Or if, as may be the case with humans, you have a mind that conceive of making two different decisions yet, in reality, can only make one due to your "personality", all you have is a perception of freedom.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. Last edited by brownjenkins : 03-28-2007 at 10:26 AM. |
|||
03-28-2007, 10:35 AM | #69 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
From a literary point of view
Quote:
It somehow reminds me of video game cheats. It's all about getting to the next level...why play the game? |
|
03-28-2007, 11:31 AM | #70 | |||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
By your definition, we really don't have identity. Or at least we have enslaved identities. For identity can't possibly come from randomization, or we'd be unable to distinguish between one person and another. Rather, identity must come from parts of us that are recognizably distinct, and that involves the predestined factors, the weights on the dice. Our decisions don't come from our identities though, so we have enslaved identities. By accepting randomization, we say that we aren't ourselves. By accepting predestination, we affirm that we are. 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 : 03-28-2007 at 11:37 AM. |
|||||
03-28-2007, 12:34 PM | #71 |
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
|
re God and going "above" logic - I think of logic as reality. And God can't go outside of reality. As CS Lewis says (roughly), nonsense remains nonsense, even if you talk it about God.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ 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! |
03-28-2007, 12:59 PM | #72 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
03-28-2007, 01:32 PM | #73 | ||||
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
If you'd just come out an admit that ultimately we don't have any real freedom, just the perception of it, I'd agree with you. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
From my point of view "free will" is either completely non-existant (everything is determined) or is not what we think it is (randomness exists, but we don't control this randomness). But, either way, we do have the unbreakable perception of free will, thus it makes perfect sense to act as if it exists. However, if I were religious, I'd have to believe that god has the power to transcend human logic and be able to make decisions free of cause and effect. We don't know what that agent is, call it a soul, if you like. And, if god can have this agent, then there is no reason he can't pass it on in some form to his creations. The alternative is what sis said: "Lief's deterministic system, by eliminating that point of choice, reduces the impact of either bad or good choices."
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
||||
03-28-2007, 04:09 PM | #74 | ||||||||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, I agree with you completely that randomization is the logical conclusion of the Free Will belief. The statement that we have to make our own choices without someone else also deciding them is the modern "Free Will" philosophy, which not everyone agrees with. So you're assuming the modern Free Will philosophy's definition as the one everyone accepts. I agree with you that according to that definition, which even many of its ardent advocates wouldn't hold to if they realized it really meant, we don't have any free will. By that definition, we don't have free will. That is not the only valid definition we can consider, though. There are two others. First is this, a definition quite similar to that which I'm usually using in this debate: Quote:
Quote:
"Free Will," by the definition with which you're using the word (a definition you know my difficulties with), is completely non-existent. I also agree with 2, that freedom is not what many people think it is. Though I discard your word "we" in exchange for "many people," because I don't think the definition you're using is accepted by everyone. Many Christians, believers in Free Will and believers in predestination alike, hold to the higher Christian definition of freedom, which is submission to God. But there also is a definition of freedom in the World English Dictionary which is what everyone thinks it is, but also is not in conflict with predestination. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Choices we make, in my view, are expressions of identity. A decision is one person impacting another with some part of who he or she is. Part of that person's identity touches and may influence the other, depending upon the other's personality. Decision is an expression of who you are that can extend beyond you and change other people's lives. That is a very big difference. Sis's statement looks to me at present very arbitrary and based on mere assumption. It's just a statement of, "my belief is better than your belief," without any reasoning to back that up. Though perhaps there was reasoning in the original context. I'm not reading Sis's posts, for a number of what I consider to be very good reasons.
__________________
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." |
||||||||||
03-28-2007, 04:45 PM | #75 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
*giggle*
Quote:
*giggle* I'm sorry. It's so cute. |
|
03-28-2007, 04:53 PM | #76 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
You said yourself (more or less) that god predestines some to be heroic, which implies that he predestines others to not be heroic. Thus, while humans have the ability to be either heroic or non-heroic, god restricts who has access to the heroic choice at any given point of time when he creates them. If you don't have access to a choice due to an outside force (god), you are restricted from making it.
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
03-28-2007, 04:57 PM | #77 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
agreed.
Quote:
|
|
03-28-2007, 04:58 PM | #78 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
03-29-2007, 02:13 AM | #79 | |||||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Fountain Valley, CA
Posts: 6,343
|
Quote:
I'm restricted by my identity to some extent, even if you think we're dominated by random chance, for no matter how much chance rules me, I can't change my physical body into that of a polar bear. These kinds of identity related freedom restrictions aren't considered serious in the dictionary definition. Of course you can't be a polar bear. The point of the definition is how freely your choices come from you, not what you are in the first place. Quote:
Quote:
I was made to be a human, so I can't fly. That isn't slavery. It's a restriction, but it's just identity, and identity isn't something we think of as a restriction of freedom because it's a restriction that gives us meaning. If we weren't restricted to being who we are, we'd have no identities and so become non-creatures. Is my being unable to fly a bad thing? Who are we to say? Daniel Boone was made to be heroic, so he was. Is that a bad thing? Again, who are we to say, and again, it's identity that gives meaning, not randomization that takes it away. Your above sentence seems to imply this: "humans" have heroism, but some people weren't made with heroism, so how can that be fair? That's what you seem to be saying, though I might be wrong. But that's like complaining that we weren't made with wings. It's saying, "why did you make me like this, God?" And that implies that God can have no good reason if you don't know it, which is seriously "false pride on the part of humanity." Quote:
If I was given "Free Will," freedom of complete choice, and if God did not restrict my freedom at all but gave me all the options, then there would be no "me" to select between them. Even if he gave me a limited set of options, there would be only an enslaved me. So this kind of restriction creates identity. If this kind of restriction didn't exist, there would be no "you" to be restricted or free! You seem to think you should be able to create yourself. To do away with God and become your own creator. You seem to think that God should have designed you to be able to choose what you would be, which means to invent yourself. But the logical flaw is that if you were left to invent yourself, there'd be no "you" to do the inventing! The greater the size of the restriction we're discussing, the less random chance there is and simultaneously, the more "you" there is. The smaller this restriction is, the less "you" there is and the more random chance. If this restriction didn't exist at all, there would be no "you" at all, but total and complete randomization. If this restriction was complete, as I think it is, then there is no randomization but there is a complete "you." The freedom definition we're talking about now is: "A state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any, or to any undue, restraints and restrictions." This definition requires that there be somebody to do the choosing or to be restricted. For there to be somebody at all who can do the choosing or be restricted, there must be this restriction you've criticized. Hence, identity is not in discussion here, or if it is, it would be considered a "due" rather than an "undue" restriction. This Godly restriction is presumed in the definition and is not the restriction described in the definition. If it was not presumed, no one would even bother with trying to define freedom. 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 : 03-29-2007 at 02:17 AM. |
|||||
03-29-2007, 09:37 AM | #80 |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,535
|
Daniel Boone
For those who don’t know, Daniel Boone was a ne’rdowell trapper and hunter of the American Colonial period. Chiefly noted for his role in illegally displacing the native peoples of the Kentucky region, he was also engaged in large scale land speculation. In one incident, shortly after the American Revolution, he lost $20,000 of settler money, ostensibly while en route to registering their land claims. He held a number of small public offices and military positions, but the one time he was court-martialed, he was acquitted. He was a large slaveholder in Kentucky, during one of his more solvent periods.
I just wanted everyone to be sure the definition of “hero” Lief was using was clear. In terms of the rest of his argument, I was particularly amused by his leap from "I can't be a polar bear" to "God's plan for me controls my choices." That was a real knee-slapper. I wish him well,in his NEXT incarnation, as a polar bear. I have no doubt that God, hearing his petition, will grant him that opportunity, next time. |
|
|
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 | Rían | General Messages | 2289 | 01-08-2004 02:31 AM |