Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Charismatic Chaos
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 166 of 531 (534177)
11-05-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by iano
11-05-2009 1:23 PM


Re: Free Will?
Once sin entered man, man's will was skewed by an addiction. An addiction and tendency towards Sin.
The imbalance caused by our natures addiction to sin is countered by conscience which gives our choice an balance as if we had an Adamic style free will.
But why were we tainted by our forebearers? That makes no sense, especially from a just god. If he were truly just, he would allow each person to freely choose sin or not, rather than giving them an addiction because their gret-great-great-...-great grandparents made a bad choice.
Secondly, if we're truly addicted, we can't be held to blame as much as someone not so addicted. Besides, say what you will about yourself, but I'm not addicted to sin at all.
What matters is that you have a range of things to choose for in order that your choice wrt to your eternal destination can be established. There is no need to give you the possibility to do simply anything in order to give you sufficient for the purposes intended.
But the purposes intended was fopr a free people to worship god and exist in a paradise. Even assuming we all get burdened with original sin, he could allow all of us to live freely and not have us have the option of being unfit. And, if we allow the choice to be unfit, for some reason, there is still no reason to allow the person making the wrong choice to be able to carry it out and hurt an innocent. The fact that god allows people to not only make the choice, but to carry it out, means he has no problems with people getting murdered, raped, or robbed, as long as he knows who to erase from the book of life. It's like he sees us as bugs for his own amusement, not concerned one whit for how our lives go. And that's not moral or just, it's at best amoral and indifferent.
Free will as I understand it, involves the ability to chose equally either way; without predisposition or undue influence pushing you in a particular direction. It might simply involve eating a particular fruit or no. It is not diminished by the inability to choose to fly.
But we have predispositions and influence. Gravity, physics, and human brain chemsitry are all limiting factors. We're surrounded by them, and yet God says "This is where the line must be, you must be allowed to make other people suffer, otherwise, my whole experiment fails." Frankly, that says a whole lot more about the experimenter than it does about the experiment, and it doesn't say anything nice.
What matters is that you have a range of things to choose for in order that your choice wrt to your eternal destination can be established. There is no need to give you the possibility to do simply anything in order to give you sufficient for the purposes intended.
But he could determine people's wills and hearts by giving them a smaller range as well. Why does he have to allow people the choice of murder, rape and torture, couldn't blasphemy and pride be enough? Even if he does have to allow us the choice to do wrong such that someone else will suffer, he doesn't have to let us carry it out. Once he sees our decision, he could cause a chain of events that leads to the person not being able to carry it out, he can do anything, but he seems to limit himself in this particular place for no discernable reason.
Desiring to hurt someone doesn't involve the same degree of wickedness as actually pulling out their fingernails. Given that our evil brings consequences which can be utilised by the mechanism of salvation, we shouldn't object to our evil be left to run riot. It might very well be the saving of us - and the person on whom we inflict suffering.
I don't see it. The desire to pull someone's fingernaisl out is wicked enough without making it possible for them to do so. And using wickedness as a means of salvation is a serious flaw for a being that could have picked any means as a mechanism for slavation. It screams of sadism that he would pick this one. And trying to say that by suffering rape, torture, murder, etc makes someone more receptive to god's statement of salvation is just ignorant of the facts. There are no marked differences in religious belief before or after something such as this, and if anything, it's a step away from religion as people are left to understand that a giod that allows this to happen merely for his own omniscience to have clear and unadulterated evil to punish is not a good god.
It sounds as if God is either sadistic, or just wants to punish people, so he stacks the deck such that he will have people to punish.
Gods ultimate purpose for all of us is that we have opportunity to say yes/no to his desire to form an eternal loving relationship with us. Because we are all fallen, our natural tendency, whether we're the ones pulling someones fingernails out or whether we're the one whose fingernails are being pulled out; is to resist God's advances.
That's fine, couldn't he send me a questionaire? Couldn't he test me without putting other people's lives, sanity, and bodies on the line? It's way to Draconic and drastic for someone as powerful as god is supposed to be. It smacks of post hoc reasoning and attempting to cover over cognitive dissonance. "This is horrible, but it must be for a good purpose, thus..."
He want's us saved and went to extraordinary personal suffering to enable that.
I don't see it. All the suffereing seems to be one sided, and it's definitely not his.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by iano, posted 11-05-2009 1:23 PM iano has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 531 (534214)
11-05-2009 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by iano
11-05-2009 1:01 PM


Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
I'm not sure what your objection is. Ultimately you either love what God stands for and want to spend an eternity in a realm containing that. Or you don't.
What does God stand for? From this side of the fence it looks like extortion. He creates us with a sinful nature and then punishes us when we do exactly what he planned for us to do. Then to add insult to injury says if we don't accept his self-righteous suicide through Jesus, we'll burn for all eternity.
Do the math, that is exactly what it all amounts to.
God has set a mechanism in place whereby we are the one's who (effectively) get to choose where it is we end up.
No, no, no... There are no real choices in this, Iano. It would be naive to think so. He created in us the desire and the ability to sin. He made that. And since the bible itself says that it is impossible not to sin, he is complicit in our sin and indeed the very cause of it. Come on, think about it.
It's a simple offer ultimately and I see absolutely no cause for complaint.
If you want to praise your tormentor, by all means. If that's what you believe, knock yourself out. If you believe that, I've got some great beachfront property in the Arizona I could sell you for real cheap.
Perhaps you could skip past the posturing, cut to the chase and tell me precisely what problem you have with the way it is (assuming I describe it as the way it is).
Have I not been extremely direct???
God created human with a will that could chose equally either way. When man fell and in doing so, obtained a strong desire to sin, God countered that imbalancing of the former free will with a knowledge of good and evil.
No matter how you slice it or blameshift to the Fall of Man (which is paying for the sins of the father, by the way, which contradicts Ezekiel) God is the ultimate source. That it all goes back to him creating us the way he desired, that he knew we would all fall because of the way he created, is not really giving us a choice, now is it?
The mere fact that everyone has sinned makes it impossible to believe that we actually have any kind of real choice here.
Just think about it objectively for a minute and try not to inject any of your defense mechanisms to rush to God's aid for a minute. If he's every bit what you think he is he doesn't need your help.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by iano, posted 11-05-2009 1:01 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by iano, posted 11-06-2009 5:19 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 531 (534219)
11-05-2009 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by iano
11-05-2009 1:23 PM


Re: Free Will?
I'd point out at this stage that our will isn't free in the sense created by God in Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve, I'd argue were the first and last (bar Christ) to have a free, unfettered will. Once sin entered man, man's will was skewed by an addiction. An addiction and tendency towards Sin.
An addiction that was imparted by God.
We can't speak of an addict having a free will. So I usually put the word 'effective' before the words 'free will' when talking of the will of post-fall humans. The imbalance caused by our natures addiction to sin is countered by conscience which gives our choice an balance as if we had an Adamic style free will.
But you seem to speak of man's "nature" as if God would have had nothing to do with it, as if it just sort of happened. If God in fact created in man his desires, then is he not complicit for how his own creation responds to sin?
Indeed there is no reason to have ever allowed for sin in the first place, as best I can tell. And then in stories like Job he wagers bets on us. Job's whole family dies in this cosmic bet between himself and another one of his creations, Satan. Job's whole family was expendable so long as it proved a point to Satan.
Free will as I understand it, involves the ability to chose equally either way; without predisposition or undue influence pushing you in a particular direction.
But that obviously is not true. How could it be? If God imparts the very desire to sin, nothing could be done apart from his intentions and his own will. God not only knows the decision we make before we do (which in and of itself makes freewill questionable) but he also is the driven compulsion to sin.
Gods ultimate purpose for all of us is that we have opportunity to say yes/no to his desire to form an eternal loving relationship with us.
Then why is God vague? Why does God place a thousand barriers between himself and us? Why have us here on earth, going through these pointless motions if ultimately he just wants us with him? Why prolong what he ultimately wants? That seemed to work out just fine for the angels. What sense is there in making trillions of different species, some that are yet to be discovered by man in some deep oceanic cavern miles beneath the surface?
That is one question never questioned or answered in the bible. Why do we exist in the physical realm at all?
When you add up the anomalies and the inconsistencies, it surely appears that God did not create man, but rather man created God to explain that which his mind cannot fully comprehend.
Inflicting evil involves the suffering of a guilty conscience.
Vlad the Impailer didn't seem too conflicted, lest impailing thousands of people through the rectum so that it would come out the mouth seems merciful.
Experiencing evil involves the suffering of being treated unrighteously. All people do both. And so all people suffer. Suffering is natures (and thus God's) way of telling us that there is something wrong. And there is something wrong: we're lost sinners heading towards wrath.
Our minds, as depraved as they are, are ultimately the responsibility and creation of God himself. You can say that we have freewill. In a sense, sure, we have some option not to do something to avoid retribution or avoiding some consequence. But that is the greatest motivation, and it is a selfish one.
All these emotions, all of our thoughts, are the result of God's doing, his design, and his plan. Because indeed if you believe that God is omnisicent, then you all but would have to concede that he is responsible for the way we are -- the good and the bad. And he seems indifferent to it.
You're suggesting that God should eliminate one of the central things that might bring us to our knees before God? To do so would diminish the opportunity for our salvation - why on earth should God do that.
Being the principle cause of man's suffering and then offering salvation is like maliciously kicking a man in the teeth and then treating his wounds. And what's worse, if you don't accept your tormentor's treatment, he'll execute you outright.
Now what kind of a "choice" is that really? What kind of free will is that? Sure, there is a superficial appearance of free will. We literally can say yes or no to, but your only options are made up for you. Ultimately there is no free will involved, for God creates the rules of the game.
It's like creating a chess playing computer that can make different decisions based on algorithyms. Sure, it can "choose" different moves. It is not consigned to making a move that would kill it. But looking at the bigger picture, that computer program can only do what it was coded to do by its Maker.
The program cannot decide not to play the game. And just like the program, we cannot decide not to play God's game. He is our Programmer and we have no real choices.
He gives almost no evidence that he even exists, which is tempting in and of itself to shirk it off and just go live life. Then when you die, he says you never accepted me. To hell with you. Or you can just blindly submit to your own tormentor and hope he'll spare your soul. But your whole life here will be devoted to the nothingness and hoping that somehow you're right and that your life devoted to this mystery is not all bullshit and a huge waste of what precious time you have alive on this earth.
So, yeah, in some sense we do have a choice. But it's like choosing which testicle you want to be kicked in. Right or the left, pick yer poison. Not much of a choice, now is it?
He want's us saved and went to extraordinary personal suffering to enable that.
Did he? Was it necessary? Because if it were not necessary then it is immaterial. It did not have to be like this, so God's suffering is immaterial and indeed appears self-righteous.
Thousands upon thousands of people have suffered intensely in the name of God. Thousands upon thousands of been immolated and hung from the cross before, during, and after the time of Jesus.
Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that they are sitting at the right hand of God?
There is not much deduce here other than these are fables from people trying to find some kind of meaning and purpose to life. But we are no more equipped to answer these questions than our forefathers before us.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by iano, posted 11-05-2009 1:23 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-06-2009 8:54 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 169 of 531 (534232)
11-06-2009 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Hyroglyphx
11-05-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
Hyroglyphx writes:
What does God stand for? From this side of the fence it looks like extortion. He creates us with a sinful nature and then punishes us when we do exactly what he planned for us to do. Then to add insult to injury says if we don't accept his self-righteous suicide through Jesus, we'll burn for all eternity.
Do the math, that is exactly what it all amounts to.
Despite it being pointed out to you a couple of times now, you persist in ignoring something which operates in addition to, and contra, the sinful nature.
The (God powered) conscience.
Sin is our responsibility - arrived at in the following way (as far as I can make out) We are the ones to cut the restraint imposed by conscience - we do this in order to have what sin offers. That we have a nature that chases after evil like mice after cheese isn't the end of the story. If it was, we'd have a fair case at Judgement seeing as we didn't ask for this sin-loving nature.
Along with the joy of doing evil comes something else. It's a 'force' called 'guilt and shame'. Guilt and shame aim to bring us to our knees before God, it aimed to disturb us, to upset us, to make us unhappy about ourselves in our sin. It's a resistable force of course: it can be denied and buried. It can even be denied and buried til your dying day.
If damned you'll acknowledge that it was you who insisted on persisting with your addiction when a way out was made available to you. You're not to blame for being born with an addiction. But you are to blame for insisting in persisting along with it when it wasn't necessary or inevitable that you do. Your persistance denied what the truth was trying to tell you about you - that you're evil at heart.
In this way you're culpable for your sin. The addict who refuses to escape from his addiction and refuses to acknowledge his addiction - despite evidence to the contrary is responsible for actions taken due to his addiction.
I'll try and get back to this later..
Edited by iano, : clarifying ideas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2009 9:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2009 9:53 AM iano has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 170 of 531 (534258)
11-06-2009 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Hyroglyphx
11-05-2009 10:36 PM


Re: Free Will?
Hyro writes:
You're suggesting that God should eliminate one of the central things that might bring us to our knees before God? To do so would diminish the opportunity for our salvation - why on earth should God do that.
Being the principle cause of man's suffering and then offering salvation is like maliciously kicking a man in the teeth and then treating his wounds. And what's worse, if you don't accept your tormentor's treatment, he'll execute you outright.
Now what kind of a "choice" is that really? What kind of free will is that? Sure, there is a superficial appearance of free will. We literally can say yes or no to, but your only options are made up for you. Ultimately there is no free will involved, for God creates the rules of the game.
It's like creating a chess playing computer that can make different decisions based on algorithyms. Sure, it can "choose" different moves. It is not consigned to making a move that would kill it. But looking at the bigger picture, that computer program can only do what it was coded to do by its Maker.
The program cannot decide not to play the game. And just like the program, we cannot decide not to play God's game. He is our Programmer and we have no real choices.
He gives almost no evidence that he even exists, which is tempting in and of itself to shirk it off and just go live life. Then when you die, he says you never accepted me. To hell with you. Or you can just blindly submit to your own tormentor and hope he'll spare your soul. But your whole life here will be devoted to the nothingness and hoping that somehow you're right and that your life devoted to this mystery is not all bullshit and a huge waste of what precious time you have alive on this earth.
So, yeah, in some sense we do have a choice. But it's like choosing which testicle you want to be kicked in. Right or the left, pick yer poison. Not much of a choice, now is it?
You know, this is what I've always wondered: Whether or not God exists is irrelevant if we don't want to play the game anyway. Instead of sitting down to play checkers, why can't we just toss the board and go watch TV instead? Yes, I know it's God's desire that we all end up with him, but, if you'll pardon the analogy, doesn't that make him out to be like an obsessive parent? Any respectable god that created sentient beings would want them to eventually get to the point where they wouldn't need him anymore; also, if they wanted to leave home early and just go their own way, they would be allowed to.
What do you guys think? (Especially you iano )
T&U

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2009 10:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Stile, posted 11-06-2009 10:23 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied
 Message 172 by iano, posted 11-06-2009 6:50 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 171 of 531 (534261)
11-06-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Teapots&unicorns
11-06-2009 8:54 AM


Watching TV
Teapots&unicorns writes:
Whether or not God exists is irrelevant if we don't want to play the game anyway. Instead of sitting down to play checkers, why can't we just toss the board and go watch TV instead? Yes, I know it's God's desire that we all end up with him, but, if you'll pardon the analogy, doesn't that make him out to be like an obsessive parent? Any respectable god that created sentient beings would want them to eventually get to the point where they wouldn't need him anymore; also, if they wanted to leave home early and just go their own way, they would be allowed to.
What do you guys think?
I think that this is exactly why I do not respect any proposed "God" who has a heaven/hell division in their described afterlife.
Such a God isn't worthy of respect.
I respect virtues such as honesty, truth, and being good. All such virtues are easily explained, obtained and described without the addition of any God. As shown in threads like these (yes, I'm a very conceited bastard):
What Benefits Are Only Available Through God? Message 1
(none have been identified yet)
The Meaning of Life for Atheists Message 1
Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others Message 1
Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy Message 1
Therefore, with the existence of such virtues without God, it is possible (and very easy) for us to compare that which God is said to be providing and see if it's "any good." So we are capable of examining claims such as this:
iano in message 164 writes:
God has set a mechanism in place whereby we are the one's who (effectively) get to choose where it is we end up. In a realm containing God and what he stands for, or in a realm containing God and what he stands opposed to. The choice presented us is made a balanced one too.
All we can ever do is make decisions and judgments with the information we have at the time. We must remember that when more information is added (if ever...) we are able to adjust our decisions then.
With that disclaimer in mind, this concept of choosing God or not-God is all well and good. But did God ever think that maybe we want to be in a realm that contains what God stands for, but we don't really care if God himself is there or not?
If I were God, I would have thought of such a thing.
If I were God, I would not have such a heaven/hell division in the afterlife. I would have an afterlife where such a juvenial division isn't required.
If I were God, I wouldn't care if people wanted me or not, only if they wanted the important things... the virtues.
If I can think of a system that is more honourable than the one being promoted as "from God himself"... God is either not smart enough or powerful enough to create such an afterlife, or God isn't honourable or attached to the virtues that are generally attributed to Him. In either case, God isn't worthy of us choosing "to be with God just because He's God."
As far as I can tell, the only honourable thing is to stick to the important details... the virtues... until we're confronted with additional information about this whole God concept.
Still waiting for that additional information...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-06-2009 8:54 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by iano, posted 11-06-2009 7:14 PM Stile has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 172 of 531 (534310)
11-06-2009 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Teapots&unicorns
11-06-2009 8:54 AM


Re: Free Will?
T&U writes:
You know, this is what I've always wondered: Whether or not God exists is irrelevant if we don't want to play the game anyway. Instead of sitting down to play checkers, why can't we just toss the board and go watch TV instead? Yes, I know it's God's desire that we all end up with him, but, if you'll pardon the analogy, doesn't that make him out to be like an obsessive parent? Any respectable god that created sentient beings would want them to eventually get to the point where they wouldn't need him anymore; also, if they wanted to leave home early and just go their own way, they would be allowed to.
What do you guys think? (Especially you iano )
a) God isn't your parent. Far from it at the moment. So that attempt to draw comparisons needs serious re-working. At this moment you're position before God is variously described as; rebel, God-hating, foolish, child of Satan. Do continue along that vein if you must..
b) The option to drop out of the game isn't available. It's eternity with God is love or eternity with God is wrath.
c) We are made in Gods image and likeness and as a result are relational, creative, loving, etc, etc. If you want to live without God then you can live without those aspects of God for a start. Indeed, the environment of Hell would appear to involve just that - your being stripped of the image of God in which you were made. The results don't look all that attractive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-06-2009 8:54 AM Teapots&unicorns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-06-2009 8:43 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 173 of 531 (534314)
11-06-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Stile
11-06-2009 10:23 AM


Re: Watching TV
iano writes:
God has set a mechanism in place whereby we are the one's who (effectively) get to choose where it is we end up. In a realm containing God and what he stands for, or in a realm containing God and what he stands opposed to. The choice presented us is made a balanced one too.
All we can ever do is make decisions and judgments with the information we have at the time. We must remember that when more information is added (if ever...) we are able to adjust our decisions then.
Indeed. And the point has been made that if God has indeed installed his sense of right and wrong in you then there is no need for you to have information as to his existance in order to decide on the issues he utilises in allowing you to determine your eternal destination.
"All we can ever do..."
You're doing it already, Stile. Hundreds of times a day in all likelyhood
-
With that disclaimer in mind, this concept of choosing God or not-God is all well and good. But did God ever think that maybe we want to be in a realm that contains what God stands for, but we don't really care if God himself is there or not?
Spoken like a lost man. A man who wants the light but not the electricty, the sound but not the musician. Seriously Stile, the most fascinating being in the whole Universe, the one who would be the source of your purpose (your own purpose being a self-generated illusion).
And you can do without.
-
If I were God, I would have thought of such a thing.
If I were God, I would not have such a heaven/hell division in the afterlife. I would have an afterlife where such a juvenial division isn't required.
If I were God, I wouldn't care if people wanted me or not, only if they wanted the important things... the virtues.
All you're expressing is your lostness and hatred for God, Stile. If you were God? The thing is you are not God. You are a creation of God (if somewhat sullied by sin) and you were created for a reason (somewhat succintly put as "to love God and enjoy him forever".).
Any other idea you have about the way it should be is the result of Sin in you. And Sin in you does as Sin in people always does. It makes them God hating slanderers and rebels, waving their tiny fists at God not realising whose grid they are plugged into - when they raise their fists so.
It was never the deal that you would rebel for ever. The deal is that you acknowledge your creator for who he is (w.r.t. you) and take up the position he assigned for you (which is the correct and fitting thing for you to do). Or continue in your rebellion to the end as you are currently doing.
Assuming for the moment that it's only evil that has a man rebel from God, would not the wise thing to do be to ask God that if this be so, you'd request that he show you a way out of your dilemma. Even if you don't yet believe that evil is the reason why you show God so litle respect.
-
If I can think of a system that is more honourable than the one being promoted as "from God himself"... God is either not smart enough or powerful enough to create such an afterlife, or God isn't honourable or attached to the virtues that are generally attributed to Him. In either case, God isn't worthy of us choosing "to be with God just because He's God."
As far as I can tell, the only honourable thing is to stick to the important details... the virtues... until we're confronted with additional information about this whole God concept.
Still waiting for that additional information...
As per above: who said that you're not making relevant decisions regarding your eternal destination all day long. You've vented quite a few in this post already. For example.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Stile, posted 11-06-2009 10:23 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by onifre, posted 11-07-2009 4:53 PM iano has seen this message but not replied
 Message 182 by Stile, posted 11-09-2009 9:13 AM iano has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 174 of 531 (534325)
11-06-2009 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by iano
11-06-2009 6:50 PM


Re: Free Will?
iano writes:
a) God isn't your parent. Far from it at the moment. So that attempt to draw comparisons needs serious re-working. At this moment you're position before God is variously described as; rebel, God-hating, foolish, child of Satan. Do continue along that vein if you must..
I know God isn't my parent; He doen't exist. But aside from that, does God want us to be dependent on him? If not, then he is grossly misunderstood; if so, then he is a sick being that I would not want to follow. That would be a dictatorship of the highest level, which is disgusting.
iano writes:
b) The option to drop out of the game isn't available. It's eternity with God is love or eternity with God is wrath.
Well, why can't we just go our separate ways? If God is inviting us to play chess with him, then it seems like we can't do anything but play. If we win, good for us; we've won a lifetime memberrship at "God's chess club." (Which would get a little boring after a while) If we lose, we end up in "Loser's hell," where we are tortured for all eternity for failing to meet his standards. We're never given the option not to play. It's either we win or we lose; there's no indifference possible. As several people have noted, this isn't fair, it's a horrific extortion.
An even more apt analogy might be a Mafia protection racket. Humanity is the shopkeeper, the helpless elderly man cowering behind the cash register, while God is the trench-coated mob enforcer making the proverbial offer we can't refuse. "This sure is a nice soul you've got here," the mobster sneers. "It would be a terrible shame if it were to meet with some unfortunate accident."
Exactly like the gangster demanding protection money, the God of these religions offers us a forced option which his proselytizing followers deceptively present as a free choice. This isn't love - this is extortion. If God cares so much about us, then why does he need to coerce our devotion with the threat of torture?
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/divineblackmail.html
iano writes:
) We are made in Gods image and likeness and as a result are relational, creative, loving, etc, etc. If you want to live without God then you can live without those aspects of God for a start. Indeed, the environment of Hell would appear to involve just that - your being stripped of the image of God in which you were made. The results don't look all that attractive.
Here, iano; we're not asking for evil or suffering. All we want is to go our own way. We're not asking for complete rejection of God; what we do want is to have the choice to play God's game. A good possibility would be if we all start out in Heaven, but if we want to get closer to God, we have to pass the test of life here on Earth, with full knowledge of the risks. This way, we could get closer to God by our own choice.
Once again, all we want is, as you Christians are so fond of saying, a mutual relationship with God as the disciples (according to you) had with Jesus. A sense of give-and-take, a sense of trust and satisfaction- but not a sense of extortion where we can either give God what he wants or suffer for it.
Once again, this isn't love: This is the most horrific, disgusting, and repugnant idea of extortion I can imagine.
T&U

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by iano, posted 11-06-2009 6:50 PM iano has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 531 (534375)
11-07-2009 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by iano
11-06-2009 5:19 AM


Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
Despite it being pointed out to you a couple of times now, you persist in ignoring something which operates in addition to, and contra, the sinful nature.
The (God powered) conscience.
There is no evidence that a conscience is given by God, but for the sake of the argument let us assume that it is. If the conscience was so effective in curbing sin, there would no sin. Indeed there are some (sociopaths) who do not have a functioning conscience by their very design. It could also be demonstrated that the conscience is socially introduced and not a universally, innate property.
We are the ones to cut the restraint imposed by conscience - we do this in order to have what sin offers. That we have a nature that chases after evil like mice after cheese isn't the end of the story. If it was, we'd have a fair case at Judgement seeing as we didn't ask for this sin-loving nature.
That it is a part of our nature only serves to validate what I have stated. The proposed designer of all nature [God] is the one who consigned man to a misery of trying to battle the very desires he imparted in us.
Ever see the fractured psyche of the devout who live their lives trying to serve God while denying their own desires? While in some ways it could be viewed as admirable because of the selfless desire of a spirit in servitude, it is also an unnecessarily heavy burden.
These people spend so much time contemplating godly perfection (something they can never achieve) and their body's wither and their spirit dampens.
Along with the joy of doing evil comes something else. It's a 'force' called 'guilt and shame'.
That is societally induced. Those who did not grow up in the "Church" don't suffer guilt for normal and natural feelings like sexuality. It is all completely dependent upon the moral imperatives around them. Amazonian headshrinkers don't suffer the same feelings of horror that Westernized and Christianized people do for their actions.
Guilt and shame aim to bring us to our knees before God, it aimed to disturb us, to upset us, to make us unhappy about ourselves in our sin.
And what does he do to comfort us? He seems rather silent on the issue.
Your persistance denied what the truth was trying to tell you about you - that you're evil at heart.
And if we are evil heart, who is really to blame for that? You did not create yourself. Even the scriptures themselves testify that God is the creator of evil. Anyway you slice it, anyway we try and defend God, there is no way to reasonably defend it if he is the author of life.
Tell me how much preferable it would be to avoid all the travails of the physical world and just be like the angels?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by iano, posted 11-06-2009 5:19 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by iano, posted 11-08-2009 7:02 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 176 of 531 (534393)
11-07-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by iano
11-06-2009 7:14 PM


Re: Watching TV
And the point has been made that if God has indeed installed his sense of right and wrong in you
IF he did, then where exactly did he install this in our bodies?
And, at what age does it take effect, or are we born knowing this and never need to be taught?
All you're expressing is your lostness and hatred for God, Stile.
What complete arrogance!
It takes some balls as a man to address other grown men as if they were children, and needed your hand to guild them through life.
How can he hate something that doesn't exist other than as a concept in religious peoples minds?
Do you not believe in unicorns because you hate them?
You are a creation of God (if somewhat sullied by sin) and you were created for a reason (somewhat succintly put as "to love God and enjoy him forever".).
No we are not, that is only your opinion. Way to side step his point with condescending BS.
Any other idea you have about the way it should be is the result of Sin in you.
More arrogance. You have no idea if this is true, and the evidence points to it being false, so why do you say this with any kind of authority?
It makes them God hating slanderers and rebels, waving their tiny fists at God not realising whose grid they are plugged into - when they raise their fists so.
Just because you submitted to the authority of the written words of men, doesn't mean you are right nor does it mean we have to also.
You worship an invisible man and treat us like children for not falling for it, like you have.
All you have is faith that you are right, which makes you equally capable of being wrong ... so why speak about any of this with authority?
Assuming for the moment that it's only evil that has a man rebel from God, would not the wise thing to do be to ask God that if this be so, you'd request that he show you a way out of your dilemma.
Funny thing is, invisible made up characters in mythology never talk back.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by iano, posted 11-06-2009 7:14 PM iano has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 177 of 531 (534426)
11-08-2009 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Hyroglyphx
11-07-2009 9:53 AM


Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
Hyroglypx writes:
There is no evidence that a conscience is given by God, but for the sake of the argument let us assume that it is.
That's all we're doing; assuming for the sake of argument.
-
If the conscience was so effective in curbing sin, there would no sin. Indeed there are some (sociopaths) who do not have a functioning conscience by their very design. It could also be demonstrated that the conscience is socially introduced and not a universally, innate property.
The purpose of the conscience isn't to curb sin uber-effectively. The role of the conscience is to;
a) Apply resistable restraint to our natures desire to sin.
b) Apply suppressible guilt and shame after we've resisted the restraint above, and followed our natures desire.
Resisting the restraint of conscience is a wilful act and so we are rendered culpable for our sin. We earn the guilt and shame that follow. That guilt and shame is intended to finally cause us to arrive at the conclusion that we are what we actually are: rotten sinners. If it does it's work, we'll be convinced of what we need convincing of and so will be saved. The only way it won't do it's work is if we persist in suppressing it so that it can't do it's work.
And so we'll be lost.
Our lawbreaking is an essential element in our being saved (or damned): how could we be convinced of our being sinners if the purpose of the conscience was to eradicate our sinning?
-
That it is a part of our nature only serves to validate what I have stated. The proposed designer of all nature [God] is the one who consigned man to a misery of trying to battle the very desires he imparted in us.
Eh? God delivered on the (far reaching) consequences promised to Adam for his choice. We can't really blame Adam either - Adam had no knowledge of good and evil then. To blame someone requires that they knew they were doing wrong.
-
Ever see the fractured psyche of the devout who live their lives trying to serve God while denying their own desires? While in some ways it could be viewed as admirable because of the selfless desire of a spirit in servitude, it is also an unnecessarily heavy burden.
I'd be pretty certain that such devotees aren't in any way pleasing God. Take Paul on the night after having been beaten, flogged and thrown into a dungeon. What does he do? Sing joyul hymns to God!! Not a fractured psyche in sight.
Whilst it's not easy resisting the desires of the sinful flesh I see no fracturing of the psyche being necessary. What possible fracturing could be caused by resisting that which is evil? It's the fractured psyche that see's no problem with their own selfishness, greed, lust, slothy, envy, malice, gossip, slander. It's the fractured psyche that sleeps easy with itself when it is these things.
-
That is societally induced. Those who did not grow up in the "Church" don't suffer guilt for normal and natural feelings like sexuality. It is all completely dependent upon the moral imperatives around them. Amazonian headshrinkers don't suffer the same feelings of horror that Westernized and Christianized people do for their actions.
It was Richard Dawkins of all people who cited scientific research in his recent book "The God Delusion" which concluded such thing as a universal morality. The researchers posed moral conundrums which had been stripped of the influences of one's culture, upbringing, wealth, education, religious beliefs. And found that mankind, even primitive tribes hithertoe unexposed to Western mores, saw things 'moral' fundementally in the same way.
I can't see how it matters that one culture deviates from God's standard in different ways than the next. What matters is that they deviate. Nor would I suppose any fundamental difference in the motivation behind their various deviances: we might recoil in horror at the actions of a cannibal. God recoils and both them and us as we in the West consume the lives of those in 'less fortunate' areas of the world than ours.
-
Guilt and shame aim to bring us to our knees before God, it aimed to disturb us, to upset us, to make us unhappy about ourselves in our sin.
And what does he do to comfort us? He seems rather silent on the issue.
Warmth and comfort are to be expected after you've been winched from the stormy sea in which you flounder. Not before. God's first job is to convince you that you flounder in stormy seas.
-
And if we are evil heart, who is really to blame for that? You did not create yourself. Even the scriptures themselves testify that God is the creator of evil. Anyway you slice it, anyway we try and defend God, there is no way to reasonably defend it if he is the author of life.
We have already seen that nobody is to blame for our evil nature. I've already mentioned that you won't be damned for having an evil nature you did nothing to earn. You'll be damned because you insisted on hanging onto it when God was attempting to wrest it from your grip.
God is the author of life. We are the authors of death - if death is what we choose.
-
Tell me how much preferable it would be to avoid all the travails of the physical world and just be like the angels?
Given the stakes and given the undoubted trails we all face? It's understandable to sigh as you do. But you'd be forgetting the honour done you which the angels could only yearn for: the opportunity to be raised to the status of the Divine. Yes, there is the potential for absolute disaster but only you would be the author of that outcome.
It need not be disaster, if you don't want it. If you don't want it, and I mean truly don't want it, then God's mechanism of salvation will ensure that that isn't what happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2009 9:53 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-08-2009 3:44 PM iano has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 531 (534475)
11-08-2009 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by iano
11-08-2009 7:02 AM


Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
The purpose of the conscience isn't to curb sin uber-effectively.
Then what is the point of having a defective piece of equipment from a perfect being?
Resisting the restraint of conscience is a wilful act and so we are rendered culpable for our sin. We earn the guilt and shame that follow.
But again this goes back to why God imparted a desire to sin if he wanted us to avoid sin. It doesn't make any sense.
Our lawbreaking is an essential element in our being saved (or damned): how could we be convinced of our being sinners if the purpose of the conscience was to eradicate our sinning?
Why force us to be sinner at all? Doesn't make any sense.
God delivered on the (far reaching) consequences promised to Adam for his choice. We can't really blame Adam either - Adam had no knowledge of good and evil then. To blame someone requires that they knew they were doing wrong.
And yet he clearly punished them for it in Genesis, not to mention every one else.
I'd be pretty certain that such devotees aren't in any way pleasing God. Take Paul on the night after having been beaten, flogged and thrown into a dungeon. What does he do? Sing joyul hymns to God!! Not a fractured psyche in sight.
I'm referring to the insanity of "waiting on his word." The cognitive dissonance that is caused by the faithful growing unfaithful.
object width="560" height="340">
It was Richard Dawkins of all people who cited scientific research in his recent book "The God Delusion" which concluded such thing as a universal morality. The researchers posed moral conundrums which had been stripped of the influences of one's culture, upbringing, wealth, education, religious beliefs. And found that mankind, even primitive tribes hithertoe unexposed to Western mores, saw things 'moral' fundementally in the same way.
And yet strife an enmity reign supreme due to fundamental misunderstandings of one another.
Sorry, I'll have to get to the rest later.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by iano, posted 11-08-2009 7:02 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by iano, posted 11-08-2009 6:04 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 179 of 531 (534484)
11-08-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Hyroglyphx
11-08-2009 3:44 PM


Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
Hyroglyphx writes:
Then what is the point of having a defective piece of equipment from a perfect being?
That the consciences job isn't as you suppose it to be (ie: ensuring the successful, day-to-day curbing of all sin) doesn't render it imperfect. It renders your supposition regarding it's purpose, imperfect
The conscience will either bring a man to his knees so that he can be saved. Or it will undergird Judgements declaration regarding the culpability of the man who insists on his own damnation. The conscience saves or the conscience condemns; that strikes me as a pretty effective, not to say remarkable, piece of equipment.
-
But again this goes back to why God imparted a desire to sin if he wanted us to avoid sin. It doesn't make any sense.
God didn't impart the desire to sin (outside of delivering up the promised goods associated with mans choice). The image behind consumption of the forbidden fruit isn't accidental; Adam consumed sin into himself in the very act of his choosing to disobey. It was like a persons taking of heroin; sin, like heroin, is a highly addictive 'substance'.
Adam addicted him-self. And God facilitated Adams' doing that - as part and parcel of offering Adam a free choice. It doesn't mean God wanted Adam to sin however.
-
Why force us to be sinner at all? Doesn't make any sense.
God doesn't force us to be sinners. We are born that way by virtue of being children of an addict. God doesn't have to do a thing in order for us to be that way. Other than deliver up on the promised consequences involved in Adams choice.
I think you're making too much a thing out of this. Either we're born with free will and are given our own balanced choice. Or we are born with an addicted will which is balanced by God's effort (conscience) so as to effectively provide us with a balanced choice.
In the heel of the hunt, it's man who determines his own eternal destiny.
-
And yet he clearly punished them for it in Genesis, not to mention every one else.
He delivered up consequences of choice. Any sense of them being punished arose out of subsequent knowledge telling them that what they had done was also wrong. I say 'also wrong': if they hadn't have been given a knowledge of good and evil all they would have been perceived, arising out of their choice, would be negative consequences. Not moral indictment.
Offspring frequently suffer as a result of the actions of parents. It's the consequence of the parents choice.
-
I'm referring to the insanity of "waiting on his word." The cognitive dissonance that is caused by the faithful growing unfaithful.
Great movie. But I'm not sure what the relevance of your point is to the discussion.
-
And yet strife an enmity reign supreme due to fundamental misunderstandings of one another.
Indeed. It's one thing determining a mans morality from the comfort of a hypothetical case. It's quite another when a man's own interests are threatened. What was that turn of phrase from the movie "An Inconvenient Truth"?
'It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it'
-
Sorry, I'll have to get to the rest later.
No worries m8
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-08-2009 3:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-08-2009 6:57 PM iano has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 531 (534488)
11-08-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by iano
11-08-2009 6:04 PM


Re: Matters of faith, fact, and fancy
The conscience will either bring a man to his knees so that he can be saved.
And what if you have in true sincerity and nothing comes of it? What then? I'm not talking about a fleeting moment where you decide to follow God. I'm talking years and years of serious study, careful discourse, honest worship, earnest prayer, and nothing comes of it except heartache over and over again? What then?
We're led to believe it is some how a deficiency on part because God could never be faulted for anything. He's perfect.
The conscience saves or the conscience condemns; that strikes me as a pretty effective, not to say remarkable, piece of equipment.
Does it, though? Does it save or is it all quite taken on faith? Because I have a feeling that as deep of a conviction that the Muslim suicide bombers feels in the deepest recess of his soul ultimately means nothing more than cold-blooded murder. All taken on deep conviction and yet amounts to nothing more than murder.
We cannot take everything on faith, though I would certainly agree that a measure of faith is important.
God didn't impart the desire to sin (outside of delivering up the promised goods associated with mans choice). The image behind consumption of the forbidden fruit is accidental; Adam consumed sin into himself in the very act of his choosing to disobey. It was like a persons taking of heroin; sin, like heroin, is a highly addictive 'substance'.
It is pretty much unavoidable if you dissect it. God is the creator of all things, including sin and man's desire for it. You could say that it was man's fault for eating fruit and thus ingesting sin (whatever that means). Even supposing what you say is true, God still planted the seed, still provided it for man, and still ensnared man with it knowing FULL well what he would do because he sees all.
Do you still maintain that God is not culpable for sin and for man's debasement for it? It's like intentionally injecting you with cancer, only to offer to remove it. He becomes your killer and your rescuer, just so he can say he rescued you.
I don't know about you, but that sounds diabolical.
God doesn't force us to be sinners. We are born that way by virtue of being children of an addict. God doesn't have to do a thing in order for us to be that way. Other than deliver up on the promised consequences involved in Adams choice.
No matter how we slice it and dice, there is only one inescapable conclusion - God has done this. This is all part of the plan, and we are manipulated by the puppet master for his musings.
God is omniscient. God could therefore make anything possible, including never allowing for sin to factor in. He could have even avoided making us live in the physical realm when we could have been in the spiritual singing hymns of praise all day long like the Seraphim.
He had a different plan for man. That plan includes suffering.
I think you're making too much a thing out of this.
I think you make light of it as do most people. I think most people neglect to think about the deeper aspects and because of it, they easily fall prey to the cushy, feel-good stuff like "Jesus loves you so much that he died for you."
When was the last sermon you heard on the ugly parts of the bible? We don't hear about that because there is nothing good to say about it. It is difficult to defend. It is much easier to talk about Jesus, who I have great respect for, all things aside.
Either we're born with free will and are given our own balanced choice. Or we are born with an addicted will which is balanced by God's effort (conscience) so as to effectively provide us with a balanced choice.
Freewill is useless when you are coded to perform only several functions. We don't have a choice in not playing his games. Adam, Eve, you, and I never stood a chance against sin because we were never intended to conquer it. It exists, presumably, to keep us in need of him. Because that's what this whole thing is really about. It's about him and his glory.
Or the whole lot of it is fables erected from shreds of truth.
He delivered up consequences of choice.
How can you obey something and fear "consequence" without first knowing what good and evil is? See what I mean? He set up the Fall for his own ends and used Adam and Eve as the bait.
God said don't eat of it, but they had no understanding of what it meant to obey or why. God allows the Serpent unmitigated access to these 100% naive creatures, knowing full well what they would do because of his omniscience and foreknowledge.
Then he punishes Adam and Eve for committing sin, yet before they had the knowledge of good and evil, how could they reasonably be faulted for it? We also are punished on their account. Clear as day.
Offspring frequently suffer as a result of the actions of parents. It's the consequence of the parents choice.
It's not "often" in this case. It is everyone who has ever lived and will ever lived who pay for it. And it's not the parents fault! It is the Parent of Adam and Eve's fault! We are set up to believe it is man's fault or the Serpent's fault for beguiling man. But it is God who set this whole thing up! Is that not glaringly obvious? We have been fed propaganda concerning God from the start. People that question these things are heretics and have burned in the past for daring to use the brain that God supposedly gave.
Great movie.
Isn't it!?!?! A well-deserved Oscar.
But I'm not sure what the relevance of your point is to the discussion.
I was watching it the other day and it occurred to me that under the smoke and mirrors and feigning of his strong faith, Eli's most honest moment was when he admitted his frailties and admitted his anger towards the way God handles things.
I have seen people torn apart on the cusp of losing God and trying to remain faithful.
So it just kind of clicked in my mind and thought it was a great way to kind of summarize what I was talking about concerning cognitive dissonance.
It's one thing determining a mans morality from the comfort of a hypothetical case. It's quite another when a man's own interests are threatened.
And that is what I see from so many Christians. Protecting God not for God's sake, but because of their own selfish reasons. It threatens their very faith and shakes it to the core.
They defend absurdities and atrocities in the bible not for a love of God, but of a fear of disbelieving in him.
What was that turn of phrase from the movie "An Inconvenient Truth"?
I don't know. Gore is a manipulative, sanctimonious weasel and an exploiter.
It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it'
Agreed.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by iano, posted 11-08-2009 6:04 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by iano, posted 11-09-2009 6:21 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024