Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 04:35 pm
I would post one of those rolly-eyed emoticons, but good taste forbids . . .
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 11:14 pm
All I know is that I willed myself not to read this "debate"; but I couldn't resist.
Then I willed myself to make comments; but I just couldn't "bring myself" to do so.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 03:41 am
It seems to me that the need to argue for free will is more of an imperative to those of certain religions.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 09:25 am
Chumly wrote:
It seems to me that the need to argue for free will is more of an imperative to those of certain religions.
Such as. . . ?
Surely not the Calvinist.
0 Replies
 
Treya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 10:49 am
Really chumly? What religions are you refereing to?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 10:51 am
neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
It seems to me that the need to argue for free will is more of an imperative to those of certain religions.
Such as. . . ?
Surely not the Calvinist.


You tryin' to steal my material, there, Boss?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 04:27 pm
hephzibah wrote:
Really chumly? What religions are you refereing to?
neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
It seems to me that the need to argue for free will is more of an imperative to those of certain religions.
Such as. . . ?
Surely not the Calvinist.
Where would your Christian religion be (at least as I understand how you understand it) if you did not believe that Adam and Eve made choices of their own volition, let alone that your god can do the same also.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 09:15 pm
I believe most of the nominal christians on this board believe in predestination. Free will is not an option.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 09:41 pm
The bible says Adam and Eve made choices.
The bible says God made choices.
Are you saying you have no free will then?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 11:19 pm
Chumly wrote:
The bible says Adam and Eve made choices.
The bible says God made choices.
Are you saying you have no free will then?
Funny you should say that.

Predestination, foreordination and reprobation have no basis in the bible.

You know it and I know it. Anybody else care to comment?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 01:31 pm
neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
The bible says Adam and Eve made choices.
The bible says God made choices.
Are you saying you have no free will then?
Funny you should say that.

Predestination, foreordination and reprobation have no basis in the bible.

You know it and I know it. Anybody else care to comment?

This is only if you strip god of his omniscience, since omniscience and pre-ordination are mutually exclusive.
Then of course, you would have to strip him of his omnipotence, for omniscience is a subset of omnipotence.
So, given a limited god such as this, freewill becomes more plausible...if one ignores cause+effect at a cellular level.

But ehh..as for what the 'bible' says...
Nobody seems to be able to agree! Not that it matters.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 11:39 pm
Doktor S wrote:
neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
The bible says Adam and Eve made choices.
The bible says God made choices.
Are you saying you have no free will then?
Funny you should say that.

Predestination, foreordination and reprobation have no basis in the bible.

You know it and I know it. Anybody else care to comment?

This is only if you strip god of his omniscience, since omniscience and pre-ordination are mutually exclusive.
Then of course, you would have to strip him of his omnipotence, for omniscience is a subset of omnipotence. . .
Omniscience is a limiting factor. One who is omnipotent would have no limitations and would not be diminished by willfully screening things from his knowledge.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 11:54 pm
Yes, I suppose the idea of a being capable of knowing everything, as per his omnipotence, buit choosing not to isn't inherantly contradictory.

Now if only there were a reason to take seriously the idea of such a being, any more than the idea of the mighty thor with his great hammer, mjolnir, at his side.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 06:02 am
neologist wrote:
Omniscience is a limiting factor. One who is omnipotent would have no limitations and would not be diminished by willfully screening things from his knowledge.


Geeze, what a load of crap. How do you consider yourself to be qualified to define for everyone else what a word such as omniscient means? It means all-knowing--it doesn't mean anything else, and it doesn't mean anything less. What's that line of crap about "willfully screening things from his knowledge" supposed to mean? Do you suggest that an omniscient being (no sucha thing, without proof, and you've not offered any) could choose not to be all-knowing? It makes a ludicrous parody of your terms.

Quite apart from that, i see you quickly side-stepping the point the Doktor made about different biblical exegesis. Given that no two of you jokers will consistently allege the same meaning for all that horsie poop, there's no earthly reason for any reasonable person to believe a scrap of it.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 10:26 am
Set, Just noticed your sig line. Funny!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 11:34 am
Setanta wrote:
. . . Geeze, what a load of crap. How do you consider yourself to be qualified to define for everyone else what a word such as omniscient means? It means all-knowing--it doesn't mean anything else, and it doesn't mean anything less. What's that line of crap about "willfully screening things from his knowledge" supposed to mean? Do you suggest that an omniscient being (no sucha thing, without proof, and you've not offered any) could choose not to be all-knowing? It makes a ludicrous parody of your terms. . .
Not my idea. After hearing that others define omniscient as knowing all things by necessity, (including all future things) it is quite obvious to me that the word does not fit my understanding of God. I think I can make a reasonable argument from the bible to justify my understanding. In fact I have in several places.

But if, as you say, the bible is just a load of horsie poop, why would you bother to read it?

Unless you're just curious.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 02:01 pm
Anybody with half a brain, understanding of common sense and logic, would determine very quickly that the bible is full of poop/shet.

How many books, fictional or biographical, would one give any credibility to if you are able to observe multitude of errors, omissions and contradictions?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 02:02 pm
By any standard of truth, the bible sits somewhere in the minus ten group.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 02:25 pm
Oh yeah?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 02:34 pm
neologist wrote:
Setanta wrote:
. . . Geeze, what a load of crap. How do you consider yourself to be qualified to define for everyone else what a word such as omniscient means? It means all-knowing--it doesn't mean anything else, and it doesn't mean anything less. What's that line of crap about "willfully screening things from his knowledge" supposed to mean? Do you suggest that an omniscient being (no sucha thing, without proof, and you've not offered any) could choose not to be all-knowing? It makes a ludicrous parody of your terms. . .
Not my idea. After hearing that others define omniscient as knowing all things by necessity, (including all future things) it is quite obvious to me that the word does not fit my understanding of God. I think I can make a reasonable argument from the bible to justify my understanding. In fact I have in several places.

But if, as you say, the bible is just a load of horsie poop, why would you bother to read it?

Unless you're just curious.


I did read it, three times, and out of curiosity, plain and simple. Specifically, though, i have said that the exegetics of the bible-thumpers is horsie poop.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
How can we be sure that all religions are wrong? - Discussion by reasoning logic
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
A question for athiests - Question by onevoice
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Free Will
  3. » Page 25
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 07:44:08
▲ ▼