Looks like you're the one who needs a lesson in reality. The meaning of terms is dictated by human consensus. Which means that you don't get to invent your own meaning and pass it off as reality.
Wow amazing. My friend long before "human consesus" determemend the meaning of terms, reality is way ahead of it. By your reasoning, the earth would actually be flat as long the consesus decided it was. Free will is a simple mental choice brought about by biological processes. It doesnt need human consensus for that to be true.
If you feel that I am inventing my own meanings, the pray tell please show how me demonstrating that reality gives us our meanings is invalid. You know Paul, its that thing called critical examination and actually responding to someones argument.
[qs]Even if you have, you haven't given any reason to consider it free will if that process is under the control of another or even if coercion is applied. [qs]
I have, because coercion cant have enough of an effect on actual choice, because, it is not a DIRECT part of the other persons choice making process. Logically it can only act as an influence.
As I have demonstrated by both sound argument, reason, example and illustration (not a single one of which you have delt with), it is not logically possible for anyone to interfer with my mental process of choice.
Ill provide you with yet another illustration, of which I entertain no hope of you actually dealing with. Paul said, "What man knows the mind of another man, excepth that man reveal it unto him. What man knows the mind of God except God reveal it unto hime. We have the mind of Christ"
The same way I cannot know what is in your mind, until you reveal it unto me, I also have no way getting to your actual choices to interfer with them. While there were some exterior influences to Pharoah, nobody messed with his actual choices. That is not logically possible, nor does the text indicate that God hardening pharoas heart was anything more than hyperbolic language.
You would have to show how it is both biologically and rationally possible to be "under the control of another" before just assuming that this is possible. Assuming that God was tampering with Pharoas mind, when most if not all of the text indicates other wise, doesnt help your cause.
It simply does not exist as a valid excuse to assume that there is some immoral behavior on Gods part, for the secular fundamentalist humanist to find fault with the Bible
Since you seem to be floundering, Ill throw you a bone so to speak, to help your argument along. You seem to be unwilling or unable to provide examples of a counterfactual nature. Try these Hypnosis and cultic influence
You mean that you can show a case where Pharaoh agreed to let the Israelites go even when God had "hardened his heart?" to make him do otherwise ? Then go on.
Sure not a problem. Its called the majority of the story. Look very closely at these passages Exodus, 7:4, 13, 14, 16, and 22. Exodus 8:9-10, 15, 19, 25, 28, 32. Exodus 9:2, 7, 12, 17, 21, 27, 34-35. 10:3-4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20 24. Exodus 11:1, 9. 12:31-32. !4:5
Since you chose to avoid the question the question in your last post, Ill ask it again. Is your intimation that everybody but the Bible writers are allowed to use metaphor anh hyperbolic language? Is it possible you are just working overtime to try and find fault with the text to begin with? When you use hyperbolic language with you friends and say "man I am going to kill you for that". Are you serious?
Nobody is claiming that Pharaoh lacked free will when God's influence was NOT applied to control his decision (except, maybe, for those people who hold that God giving evidence of his existence would violate our free will). So your "example" is merely proof of your inability to think logically.
I doubt it very seriously. What is happening here, is that you are trying to make a line of debarkation, that you you would not naturally make in anyother circumstance. IOWs in other circumstances you would naturally recognize hyperbolic language and metaphor, but here your goal is to bring discredit, where it it is not warrented.
In the meantime trying to not appear completely dishonest and unobjective. I dont think any honest or objective person is buying it
I keep trying to simplify this so even you can understand. Not even God could control someone elses free will, as that would constitute free will, anyones free will, as at that moment, nonexistant. Come on PaulK you better than this I believe. You know the ole law of non-contradiction, right Paul? A thing cannont be A and not A at the sametime. The moment God altered his thinking process to eliminate his free will, or made him act in such a way to violate his own will, it would not be free will.
On the contrary, I say that it is a metaphor. Obviously God did not literally make Pharoah's physical heart, physically harder. If you wish to claim that the metaphor has another meaning it is for you to supply a meaning that makes sense in context. As anybody can see, you have not done so.
Quite right, on the contrary. I have now done this numerous times. Now a simple reading of the above passages will clearly indicate that Pharoah was completely within control of his faculties, through the whole process.
Since you are atleast smart enough to recognize some metaphor, it is my guess you can see the other in context. Now just apply you simple skills of recognizing some metaphor to your limited capacity to think things out.
Given the text I have provided from that context, and your admission that Pharoah was already stubborn to begin with, there seems to be no valid reason we should not just accept it as metaphor.
Bertot writes:Unfortunately, the law at times like terms themself, dont get to the heart of the matter. It takes skilled thinkers to bring things into thier actual perspective. I dont disagee with the dictionary definitions that you provided, only that they reflect a human understanding and perception, that is lacking an actual perspective from reality. The dictionary difinitons are legal difinitons not logical applications
PaulK writes
Being an arrogant and boastful twit does not permit you to dictate definitions. As you have demonstrated you are far from being logical or a "skilled thinker". Definitions are a matter of consensus, and therefore actual usage in real life overrides your personal opinions, no matter how much you try to glorify them.
Being a simple minded buffoon, only a person such as yourself would not recognize that reality defines the parameters of our terms, we then decide what to designate the from that bases . You know Paul the expression, "from the root word meaning", thus and so. IM not dictating definitions, Im simply showing you logically how humans describe them and why
Free will is what it is from a biological, chemical reality. The parameters, guidelines and limitations of what and how it works are there before we decide what to call it or how to desigante it in TERMINOLOGY. Now surely, even you are smart enough to figure that out
Only a clown that pretends at critical thinking would suggest that definitions are a matter of consensus, primarily and only. Legal terms dont always reflect the reality of concepts and ideas. Only reality and reason can fully extrapolate how we use and understand terms and why we use the terms
Bertot writes: Since I have demonstrated by the example of Pharoah, illustrations and other examples in life why this is not possible, possibly you could provide an example of what you are asserting. Its for sure that repeating this is not helping your cause.
No, I'm not going to abandon my point just because you can't rationally argue against it.
So your only point is that the writer may NOT be using metaphor and that you have an exclusive right to assume that he is not, when reason, reality, language usage, context and every other valid reason would demonstrate otherwise. Youll stick by your point just to hope to bring discredit, where it is clear that it is not warrented?
Any thinking person examining the context and see that after God lifted A plauge, Pharoah quickly CHANGED HIS MIND, in hopes it wouldnt happena again. But thats only if your willing to be honest and objective
Perhaps you could provide an example of interference, where chemical alteration, mental alterations or removal of the thinking process is not involved, where a person still does not have the choice to amke a decision in the opposite direction.
So by your "logic" the ability to freely make choices in the absence of mental alterations etc. would "prove" the ability to freely make choices,
Yes
would "prove" the ability to freely make choices even when mental alterations had been made to force a particular outcome ?
No. Since this part of your comment makes the first part of your contradictiory, your statement then becomes nonsense
That IS the situation we are discussing.
No. Not if that is how you wish to represent it
Since this part of your statement contradicts the first part of you statement where you got it correct, it was necessary for me to seperate the two. You cant "force a particular outcome" where mental alterations have been made to free will. It would then not be free will. Since there is no indication that Pharoah was not ever in control of his faculties, especially in the passages I provided, only someone not paying any attention at all, or avoiding the obvious would contend that God forced his decisions.
Hyperbolic language neither brings discredit to the text, nor does it show some immoral action on Gods part. If you could show some valid reason why an infinte, all powerful God would need to overide someones free will, just to prove a point, you might have an argument.
All that is wittnessed in the text is Gods Patience, longsuffering and willingness to deal honestly with Pharoah. I find it very interesting that you cannot see the things I just mentioned, but you can only find ways to pick and find fault. Thhis says something about objectivity, or the lack thereof.
Why would you assume my argument implies you could still make choices, "even when mental alterations had been made" Are you deliberatley trying misrepresent my position, to avoid my argument?
Dawn Bertot
™ Version 4.2
