The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

The word simple in your above sentence, carries a much heavier implication for yourself, than a definition in a dictionary, if you catch my drift. God could do anything he wants in the first place, if God did something directly to Pharoah without Pharoahs choice, why set choices before him in the first place. That is why not just make Pharoah submit to his will without all the choices. Your argument is nonsensicalhave funEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Pally, it's your book, not mine. I could give a crap whether you read it the way it's written or not. But when you have the chutzpah to go calling Purpledawn "simple" in her bible interpretation......Motes and beams, anyone?

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

No like Pharoah didnt understand and you dont either, its your God and your book as well.Did you happen to read any of the things and implications that PD made twords me, or are you slighted in one direction. Lets just stick to the arguments is what I say. Thats funny Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Yep, I always try never to argue with someone so advanced in their writing skills that they can end sentences with prepositions I'm all for breaking the rules once you've mastered them, but in your case I'd recommend a two semester course of "Janet and John" before moving on to anything more complex

Hi PD - the "simple reading" was in quotes because I was quoting EMA's own ridiculous words: It's such pure nonsense, and yet EMA tries his hardest to claim that we are all dumb because we can't see it his way I guess we should be grateful for this opportunity to see such doublethink in action...

quote:

---

God could do anything he wants in the first place, if God did something directly to Pharoah without Pharoahs choice, why set choices before him in the first place. That is why not just make Pharoah submit to his will without all the choices. Your argument is nonsensical

---

Because that's the way God wanted to do it per Exodus 10:1 and 11:9. I didn't make up why God did it that way, it is all right there in the book. You question God's methods? God did it his way, not your way.I forgot one other spot where Pharaoh's heart was hardened, Exodus 14:10. If Pharaoh had given in too early, there would be no passover and no parting of the red sea. Yes, God could have done those first for the sake of the rituals, but he didn't.These texts tell us that God influenced Pharaoh's decisions concerning the Hebrews. I don't see that Pharaoh truly had free will.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Your demonstrating my point CD and my conclusions concerning you. Remember, CD, focus on the arguments and you will be taken seriously. Good luck.EAM

Sorry this was a malfunctionEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Oni writes:I suppose we are in agreement, since you have indirectly here suggested that freewill is an actual thing, by stating "removed freewill", whatever the reason it was removed. Your admission that freewill is an actual thing. In this statement you have ignored what i said about there also being no guilt or responsibility on the person due to a malfunction. No choice was made at all if there was a malfunction. There is no WRONG CHOICE ONI, IF THE process is not working correctly, in fact there is no choice at all, its called a malfunction. Nothing can be (morally) wrong if a person is mentally retarded.Thoughts and reactions are not related to God because there exists a valid choice in the process. the process involves an intellect designed specifically for this purpose. If you can demonstrate that in any NORMAL situation this CHOICE factor does not exist, you will have made your point.For heavens sake we do this everyday in courts of law, deciding whether a person is rational enough to be charged with a crime. If they are we move forward to convict and sentence. we do this with full knowledge that we are doing the right thing, knowing the person had a choice in the matter.now you can sit here and give extreme examples where this may not be the case, but it only demonstrates that you are avoiding the simplest of points. There was no murder, there was a taling of a life, where reason and choice were elliminated by reason of malfunction. when the state takes a life, its not murder, for the intent and puposes indicated, ITS JUSTICE. here is where your problem exists in this situation. You say "because of your opinion of that person, YOU COULD NOT make that choice. This is absolutley false. Lets say the person was forgiving Christian and had already forgiven him and knew the right thing to do AND DID IT.Besides this the KNOWLEDGE that you could not do it (AS YOU SAY) is a choice in the processNext you say, "You could have warned him" This statment is absolute proof you believe CHOICE is a part of the process called freewill. Your own words are an inditment against your position Even if this were true, which it is not, buts lets assume it is for argument sake it is. A CHOICE was made by reason of a rational process involving certain factors, you simply choose that which you thought was best.Now watch this, this is not indicative of the fact that another one could not have been made. This is what you need to prove, that is, that another COULD NOT have been made. Your assuming that every
individual would react the same give the same evidence. Your so-called pre-existing factor is better described as another choice verses something that is an absolute determining factor as you are trying to make it appear. Well your scenario might have some validity except for the fact that I watched a fella on a airplane get a cup of hot coffee spilled directly onto his lap and legs, he obviopusly felt the pain, and the only thing hesaid was, well that going to leave a mark. he made a choice to not jump up, hit the stewardess or cause a scene.Your examples of extreme situations, where there is a reaction to pain before a choice can be made due not remove the point that in any given standard situation a choice is possible. You have not in the least demonstrated that determinng factors are ALWAYS WHY THE CHOICE WAS MADE, sometimes it is just a choice No reality dectates that it does exist. You examples and words confirm this without any assistance from myself. You task is impossible, that is to present in any normal situation, where a choice could not be made in the opposite direction, or in a different direction.EAM

Nope.There is no god other than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.Or maybe that's The Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHHH).I never can remember.......

You cant be serious in this statement. My question was if God purposely and directly hardened his heart with no choice of Pharoahs, why give him a choice in the first place?here is another simple question. If Pharoah had obeyed God, wouuld it be necessary for him to do any of the plauges?. Think about it logicallyEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Hi EMA, EMA, the only one thinking illogically is you. As per your question, no, it would not have been necessary to send the plagues. Furthermore, the "choice" was most likely to make it seem as if Pharaoh was actually choosing to keep the Israelites himself and thus provide an excuse for the plagues.You can't have this kind of punishment without a scapegoat.In addition, several people have brought up the verse that tells how and why God hardened Pharaoh's heart.I'm going to say this, just like I end up saying to all Christians: If it's in the Bible, it's in the BibleT&U

Maybe, just maybe, (call me crazy)God gave Pharoah a choice because that is the normal, natural, logical and reasonable thing to do in the first place, as a rational. longsuffering God. Call me nutty.You cant be serious in your above statement, give me a breakEAM

By "free will," he means: "the ability to make decisions [that are influenced bt outside sources] on your own."Not your definition which means "anything that you feel like doing"If your will is extremely compromised like with a defect, then, yes, that is the removal of the kind of "free will" that we are talking about. EMA, this is not about a "wrong choice;" it is about a wrong action If God permits sin as a result of free will (your convoluted definition at least), then if an sinful action is committed without or with a compromised free will, like with sociopathy, then he could easily stop the action, as it would serve no purpose other than to cause suffering. In addition, in your reference to society, you mentioned courts of law. No, they do not arrest mentally impaired who have committed crimes; however, if they are unable to control themselves, then they are taken out of society for their own and everyone else's good.Ever read Of Mice and Men by Steinbeck? The ending fits in pretty well with what I'm talking about. EMA, you are failing to comprehend what he is talking about. He is saying that almost all cases of murder are motivated by a kind of brain defect or damage (Guess we'll have to remove that sin from the list). Furthermore, the loss of a life is infinitely more gruesome and sorrowful than, as you put it, a "malfunction." Also, the only reason the state takes a life is because the person is literally unable to atone and fit back in society. See the book I recommended above. Choice IS a part of "free" will, but we don't have unlimited choices. We are all extremely limited in that our brain is much more influenced in some courses of action than others. If, to follow my above example, you are a sociopath, then you will feel no remorse at watching the death, and thus no motivation for helping the person. It is not that the choice COULD NOT have been made, as you put it; it is just that the individual would be greatly influenced toward one particular course of action.
Think of it like a drug addict: he could quit, but does he have the willpower or the motivation? Is that his fault? EMA, perhaps a more apt analogy would be when the doctor tests your reflexes and then places his assistant right in the way of your foot."But I didn't want to kick her..." Choices can always be made in the opposite direction; however, if all possible courses of action are charted as probabilities, then some will be vastly higher because of unconscious predilections.It's like calling someone "rash" or "stubborn."Did they choose to be that way?
No.Does their personality affect their decisions?
Hell yes.T&U

How sad that you have resorted to quote mining...Take all of it in the right context, don't just quote mine a sentence. That's because the punishment for the crime is irrelevant. We are NOT talking about a retarded person, I said "a neurological disorder that triggered an imbalance in his emotions." Normal for all other things, just got extra mad and killed his wife because of this disorder.He had no choice, as you say, this is the point. Why does a physical handycap remove freewill and choices IF like you said it is an abstract thing?This would mean that the physical process of thought is directly related to freewill - without the physcial process, you have NO freewill.Point is, he couldn't make any other choice even though he loved his wife, regreted what he did and suffers emotionally because she is gone. He never wanted to kill her, but didn't possess the freewill not to.If freewill is directly related to the process of thought, and god created the mechanism for the thought process - IF there is a malfunction in the creation - who is responsible for the person who lost their life?God created this person faulty and inturn someone lost their lives due to god's inability to create things properly. You have just made a case for god being less than perfect. Two things:One, god made this person faulty where he couldn't make the right choice, and you think this doesn't make god responsible? God is TOTALLY responsible. He created him with a fault that caused someone else to lose their lives!Two, I've asked you already: "Now, your objective would be to give me an example of a decision you would make, or an action you'd take, that DIDN'T have any determining factors."So just give me one. We were talking about "thoughts of murder" or if you like "thoughts of taking a life."You said: There were no thoughts of murder here since there was a malfunction.There were thoughts to take a life because god created this man faulty. It is gods fault. And let me add, by all intents and purposes, that man commited murder - and he would be tried and convicted of such a crime. HUH?You have to deal with my scenario as it is. I present the scenario, you can't change it; deal with it directly don't side step it. Are you following this debate ok?He had many (hypothetical) choices ... so what?I'm saying he didn't have the freewill to make the right choice because of a determining factor. Show me how the determining factor didn't play a role - THAT'S your objective.There can't be freewill in a deterministic world - I have shown you 3 scenarios where a determining factor dictated where the person would choose to go. You have to show me how it wasn't due to a determining factor - then you would prove that we have freewill. You don't seem to be understanding this debate.Your objective is not to present another scenario, your objective is to show how there weren't determining factors.In your scenario, he may have stayed there and took the hot coffee because he didn't want to cause a scene - there again is a determining factor.Do you get what I'm saying? You have to show me how choices are made purely, and solely from freewill without determining factors. And yes, a malfuntion IS a determining factor. No, and you are not following the debate.I just have to show you how choices are deterministic, hence the freewill vs deterministic debate we are in.If reality is deterministic, then there is no freewill. If it is not deterministic, then there is freewill. You must show how reality is NOT deterministic.Can you? I believe you can't.- Oni