Are my spirtual beliefs wrong?

[quote name='SpazX']Well the whole endeavor I guess. Your questions/responses, Pyro's responses, my questions/sarcasm. None of it really matters to a creationist, if it did they wouldn't believe what they do, at least for the people who have thought about it at all. Some people just accept it and don't think about it, but daroga has himself pretty invested in it and it's not hard to find reasons/explanations for creationist claims, especially when they're accepted even if they're unreasonable/don't explain anything.

When any evidence/explanations run out, it'll go to faith.

Not that you shouldn't necessarily ask daroga questions (I did, afterall), just don't be surprised when it doesn't get anywhere :p.[/quote]Hey, I knew full well when I started asking that none of my questions were gonna go anywhere but in a circle.
 
[quote name='daroga']I'm not entirely sure the population really rebounded all that quickly. Some calculations that I've heard estimate a worldwide population at the time of the flood at about 6 billion, or roughly where we're at now (thanks to the much larger window for reproduction given 800+ year life spans). But that's all speculation as well; I don't think we have any way of knowing how populous the earth was at that time. I do wonder what their technology level was before the flood. Maybe they had PS4 already! ;)[/QUOTE]

That's very Thundarr the Barbarian; I like it. Hypothetically, though, pre-Flood technology would have to have been pretty primitive, relying mostly on less-durable natural materials. Otherwise we'd be finding those PS4s buried right alongside dinosaurs. Anyway. Fascinating thread.
 
This is all rather interesting, thanks for the conversation guys. :)

I think some of you may have inferred wrongly that inerrancy means no figurative or picturesque language. The "circle of the earth" thing seems to fit in that category--God speaks of the earth diminutively compared to himself. The same way a Browns fan might refer to the Steelers' home as a little hole in the wall, that doesn't mean that Pittsburgh isn't a reasonably sized place. It's a loaded expression.

At creation, it's pretty clear that there's something different in the sky than we've got now. A layer of water perhaps (a possible explanation to the long years if that thing was filtering the sun's effect on the earth, though that is, as always, speculation. We have no information as to what that really was). A lot of the passages on that page you linked, Pyro, are not pre-flood (when, presumably, that water-layer fell), but rather pictureesque language. It's not entirely different than someone saying they might go "up" to Canada or "down" to Mexico. You don't get to either one by climbing a ladder or digging a hole; it's a perception of north and south on maps (with perhaps slight truths in elevation, depending). What I'm seeing on this page is someone with a pretty poor handle on English metaphor and its intricacy and incorporation in our own language, let alone Hebrew word pictures which can be bizzare by our standards.

Taking the Bible literally doesn't mean you don't understand some thing figuratively. Poetry very often has such language in it. Things that begin "a parable" or "a vision" are very often pictures for something. The language in the book of Revelation is dripping with word pictures. The creation and flood accounts, though, go out of their way to indicate that this is NOT to be taken figuratively.

"But that doesn't make sense!" Well, of course not, silly. This is where we've come to an impasse before. The Bible is believed, not known. No rational defense of the Bible is going to be make a Christian out of anyone. And missing the forest for the trees as we're doing here isn't going to help anyone either.

For the record, I've got a lot of the same questions about things that you guys have raised, especially in the "how did that work?" category. And yet I recognize that it's just possible that God knows better than I how to run things and what to tell us, and that things did and do continue to work (despite the horrendous effects of sin on everything around us).
 
[quote name='daroga']We have no information as to what that really was). A lot of the passages on that page you linked, Pyro, are not pre-flood (when, presumably, that water-layer fell), but rather pictureesque language. It's not entirely different than someone saying they might go "up" to Canada or "down" to Mexico.[/QUOTE]
Or someone saying God created the earth in six days, or someone telling the myth of the tower of babel, or of creating Eve out of Adam's rib...

How about Daniel's visions of a tower thing that is so high it could be seen from anywhere on the earth? That would require a flat earth, obviously. I'm curious as to how you explain that.

[quote name='trq']Otherwise we'd be finding those PS4s buried right alongside dinosaurs.[/QUOTE]
Or, you know, if there was a worldwide flood: ANY GEOGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF IT.
 
Wow, Pyro. We were having a good conversation, thanks for bringing down a few notches. If you read carefully, I never claimed the pole argument and even claimed ignorance on the matter.

I've tried to answer questions and hoped that we could not ridicule each other's view points, but alas.

I don't think we're going to get too much more positive conversation here, so I'm gonna bow out lest it gets ugly. As always, my PM box or AIM is open.

Have a good one, guys :)
 
[quote name='daroga']Wow, Pyro. We were having a good conversation, thanks for bringing down a few notches. If you read carefully, I never claimed the pole argument and even claimed ignorance on the matter.

I've tried to answer questions and hoped that we could not ridicule each other's view points, but alas.[/QUOTE]
If it wasn't your position, then I don't understand why you'd be offended at me ridiculing it...

Anyways sincerest apologies, I didn't mean to be a complete dipshit. And I was trying to continue the discussion, I'd especially like to know what your position is on the passages about the tall objects that can be seen from anywhere on earth.
 
You ever notice that when Christians pray they are always praying to a god that is at a diagonal angle above them?

I surmise that the Christian god is a huge heavenly donut hovering over the USA.

____________
donut437347.jpg

pray_z3a9.jpg
 
On personal note I hate religion. But it really seems americans as a society (yes i'm american and not speaking about everyone but, well a few bad apples...) are to stupid to handle religion. When your major politicians are up on a stage and say they don't believe in evolution (talking to you republican PRESIDENTAL canidates) there's something wrong. When I think of a god I imagine they would be very at peace loving people/creatures. Not the type that would dam someone to eternal damnation because you made fun of them.. Would Ghandi do that?
 
I do believe that the world would probably be safer and more peaceful without religion. The ammount of blood that has been spilt in the name of any given religion is astounding. It's an "my dad can beat up your dad," kind of thing. Relgion organizes people into groups which then argue with each other until it turns into full blown violence.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I do believe that the world would probably be safer and more peaceful without religion. The ammount of blood that has been spilt in the name of any given religion is astounding. It's an "my dad can beat up your dad," kind of thing. Relgion organizes people into groups which then argue with each other until it turns into full blown violence.[/quote]

In the recent era athiests have spilt just as much (if not more) blood as religious nuts.

Religion often acts as an opiate of the masses. IMO thinking, rational human beings (such as our founding fathers) are more dangerous to the establishment then a bunch of religious kooks.
 
[quote name='camoor']In the recent era athiests have spilt just as much (if not more) blood as religious nuts.

Religion often acts as an opiate of the masses. IMO thinking, rational human beings (such as our founding fathers) are more dangerous to the establishment then a bunch of religious kooks.[/quote]



What pronouned athiests have spilt blood?
 
[quote name='homeland']What pronouned athiests have spilt blood?[/quote]Stalin, for one. Though technically, he was an atheist.

And you could really argue that that's quite different - the killing wasn't done in the name of atheism, but rather for communism/Stalinism. Same goes for Pol Pot, Mao, etc.

See: here for a big, long explanation that I'd rather not type out myself. It's a good enough read, trust me.
 
[quote name='camoor']In the recent era athiests have spilt just as much (if not more) blood as religious nuts.

Religion often acts as an opiate of the masses. IMO thinking, rational human beings (such as our founding fathers) are more dangerous to the establishment then a bunch of religious kooks.[/quote]But was it in the name of atheism? Did any of them go around saying "Death to the believers?" I've never seen a video of an atheist denouncing religion and vowing to destroy all believers. I don't know of any atheistic war(s) that have been fought in it's name where millions died.

Yet we have mulsim extremists making videos and i think the crusades have already been discussed.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I do believe that the world would probably be safer and more peaceful without religion. The ammount of blood that has been spilt in the name of any given religion is astounding. It's an "my dad can beat up your dad," kind of thing. Relgion organizes people into groups which then argue with each other until it turns into full blown violence.[/quote]

Without religion, people would just find another reason to kill each other. If you look deep enough, much of the blood spilt "in the name of religion" has really been about money--have-nots vs. haves.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']But was it in the name of atheism? Did any of them go around saying "Death to the believers?" I've never seen a video of an atheist denouncing religion and vowing to destroy all believers. I don't know of any atheistic war(s) that have been fought in it's name where millions died.

Yet we have mulsim extremists making videos and i think the crusades have already been discussed.[/quote]

I'm happy to see that somebody made this point before I did. WHen I heard "Athiests have spilt more blood than religious folks." I thought "don't get defensive" he was not talking about your religion, just deaths in the name of religion in general.

I cant recall any athiestic crusades where a bunch of atheists go around trying to get people to convert. Usually they are on the receiving end of the death handing out.

"YOU THERE!! Cake or death?"

Sometimes I wish I would get swept up in a Rasta crusade. Man that would be cool.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I cant recall any athiestic crusades where a bunch of atheists go around trying to get people to convert. Usually they are on the receiving end of the death handing out.

"YOU THERE!! Cake or death?"[/quote]

Dude, that was about the Anglican church.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']But was it in the name of atheism? Did any of them go around saying "Death to the believers?" I've never seen a video of an atheist denouncing religion and vowing to destroy all believers. I don't know of any atheistic war(s) that have been fought in it's name where millions died.

Yet we have mulsim extremists making videos and i think the crusades have already been discussed.[/quote]

Have you ever heard of a guy named Hitler, that guy wasn't too fond of religion. Just goes to show you that even vegetarian athiests can be real assholes.
 
[quote name='kevlar51']Without religion, people would just find another reason to kill each other. If you look deep enough, much of the blood spilt "in the name of religion" has really been about money--have-nots vs. haves.[/quote]

I think identification with a tribe and nationalism also play a role. The unshakable resolve of certain religious extremists can't be bought for a cushy job, company car, and a flat-screen.
 
Hitler's acts were justifiable to him in a nationalistic-faderland-aryan way, not in a "I'm forcing everybody to be the same religion I am" way. Obviously his hatred of Judaism played a role but moreso in a megalomaniacal (nationalistic as you mentioned) sense than a "spread the faith" sense.

[quote name='camoor']I think identification with a tribe and nationalism also play a role. The unshakable resolve of certain religious extremists can't be bought for a cushy job, company car, and a flat-screen.[/quote]


Yes this is true, think how much better off Iraq would be if they thought of themselves as Iraqi's first and Sunni/Shiite second, instead of the inverse. It's really too bad people are not more interested in money, life, thier children, materialistic possessions, and other tangible things instead of pride, revenge, or religious fervor.
 
[quote name='camoor']Have you ever heard of a guy named Hitler, that guy wasn't too fond of religion. Just goes to show you that even vegetarian athiests can be real assholes.[/quote]I definitely don't want to do the whole "what religion was Hitler" thing, and I know you were mostly joking, but calling him an atheist would be stretching it. The whole "What I do now I believe to be in the will of God" thing, y'know?

Can't trust those... Austrian vegetarian artists. One minute you've got a non-agression treaty, and the next minute, BAM! Surprise, Russia!

Also, witnesses claimed he ate meat during social events. Don't ask me to cite my sources on that one, 'cause I can't.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Hitler's acts were justifiable to him in a nationalistic-faderland-aryan way, not in a "I'm forcing everybody to be the same religion I am" way. Obviously his hatred of Judaism played a role but moreso in a megalomaniacal (nationalistic as you mentioned) sense than a "spread the faith" sense.[/quote]

Excuses like this could be made for religious leaders too. You could say that they were really waging war for the glory of Spain or the oligarchy of France or from sense of tribal identity, and religion was used as a foil.

JolietJake asked for an athiest who said "Death to the believers" and I provided. Every group has it's loony tunes characters, even the athiests.

I think the tendency in America to associate violent extremism with religion is due to our media's love affair with coverage of the religious right's more voceferious fundies/evangelists and muslim terrorists.
 
[quote name='camoor']Excuses like this could be made for religious leaders too. You could say that they were really waging war for the glory of Spain or the oligarchy of France or from sense of tribal identity, and religion was used as a foil.

JolietJake asked for an athiest who said "Death to the believers" and I provided. Every group has it's loony tunes characters, even the athiests.

I think the tendency in America to associate violent extremism with religion is due to our media's love affair with coverage of the religious right's more voceferious fundies/evangelists and muslim terrorists.[/QUOTE]

I'd agree with your overall point -- certainly, athiesm is no guarantee of non-violence, and there's way too much tendency to judge a group by its squeeky wheels (I'm reading Crotch's link now, but I already suspect I'm going to disagree with a good bit of it, even as an athiest myself) -- but I'd be hard pressed to consider Hitler athiest: Mein Kampf name-drops Christ a number of times, the Third Reich itself was supposed to be the cultural inheritor of the Holy Roman Empire, and Hitler even conducted an anti-athieism campaign in 1933. One could argue that his real motivations were entirely secular (I would) but by today's standards of judging motivations for, say, Islamic terrorists, Hitler would be considered Christian, without a doubt.

[quote name='The Crotch']I definitely don't want to do the whole "what religion was Hitler" thing, and I know you were mostly joking, but calling him an atheist would be stretching it. The whole "What I do now I believe to be in the will of God" thing, y'know?[/QUOTE]

Yeah ... totally missed that.
 
[quote name='trq']I'd agree with your overall point -- certainly, athiesm is no guarantee of non-violence, and there's way too much tendency to judge a group by its squeeky wheels (I'm reading Crotch's link now, but I already suspect I'm going to disagree with a good bit of it, even as an athiest myself) -- but I'd be hard pressed to consider Hitler athiest: Mein Kampf name-drops Christ a number of times, the Third Reich itself was supposed to be the cultural inheritor of the Holy Roman Empire, and Hitler even conducted an anti-athieism campaign in 1933. One could argue that his real motivations were entirely secular (I would) but by today's standards of judging motivations for, say, Islamic terrorists, Hitler would be considered Christian, without a doubt.[/quote]

You and Crotch make a good point about Hitler. I was going to counter with Sadaam Hussein but I found out that even he occasionally portrayed himself as a devout Muslim!

Thanks for fleshing out your opinions. Personally I consider the communist dictators to be evidence enough that religious extremists don't corner the market on intolerance.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Thanks for fleshing out your opinions. Personally I consider the communist dictators to be evidence enough that religious extremists don't corner the market on intolerance.[/quote]Certainly not. Absolutely, one hundred percent not. Zebras maybe, but not intolerance or general asshole-ism.

And as far as I'm concerned, the whole "Which side has more blood on it hands?" debate isn't really a big deal. As was pointed out above, Hitler was a vegetarian - that does not invalidate vegetarianism. It also does not invalidate Christianity, and Stalin's being an atheist does nothing to invalidate atheism.

But someone alluded to something that I'd like to pursue, since this thread has been quadruple-Fire-Emblem-derailed. Specifically: has there been any significant conflict/war that is purely religious in its origins? I'd go with the Children's Crusade, but I'm not totally sure there.
 
[quote name='The Crotch'].

But someone alluded to something that I'd like to pursue, since this thread has been quadruple-Fire-Emblem-derailed. Specifically: has there been any significant conflict/war that is purely religious in its origins? I'd go with the Children's Crusade, but I'm not totally sure there.[/quote]


I can't imagine a conflict/war based purely on religion.. Maybe the inquisition? but I don't think that was the type of event you were thinking about. Or even what other issues besides religion there were with the inquistion.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']But someone alluded to something that I'd like to pursue, since this thread has been quadruple-Fire-Emblem-derailed. Specifically: has there been any significant conflict/war that is purely religious in its origins? I'd go with the Children's Crusade, but I'm not totally sure there.[/QUOTE]

Does that even count as a war? They never even fought anyone. I think they made it as far as the coast before their own side sold them into slavery, no?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']It's the thought that counts, man.[/QUOTE]

Remember that when I send you Tennis on the VC for Christmas.
 
I'm on a 56k, so no online with the Wii for me. I'll have to remember that you attempted to send Tennis on the VC.

Also, what were your complaints with the article I brought up?

EDIT: Come to think of it, I'll actually be able to get online by fall of this year as I'll be going to university at that point.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']I'm on a 56k, so no online with the Wii for me. I'll have to remember that you attempted to send Tennis on the VC.

Also, what were your complaints with the article I brought up?

EDIT: Come to think of it, I'll actually be able to get online by fall of this year as I'll be going to university at that point.[/quote]


your still on 56k? ... that kind of suffering is proof there is no god!
 
[quote name='The Crotch']I'm on a 56k, so no online with the Wii for me. I'll have to remember that you attempted to send Tennis on the VC.

Also, what were your complaints with the article I brought up?

EDIT: Come to think of it, I'll actually be able to get online by fall of this year as I'll be going to university at that point.[/QUOTE]

Well, it's a smart essay overall, so while I find some of the reasoning to be inconsistent, it's not a low level argument by any means. I'll be reading the rest of the site when I have more time, and likely filing a bunch of info away for future usage.

The essay is also long enough that I'm going to be pretty general about where I thought it was off base. The crux of the argument in the essay is that athiests are by definition a varied group, and since the atrocities of the communist regimes had more to do with them as communists than athiests, the idea that athiests are just as bloodthirsty as the religious doesn't stick. Now, that works on a number of levels and I'd never make the tired claim that athiesm is just another form of religion, but the writer suggests that the same broad "religion causes violence" claim is perfectly valid, never considering that even in religious groups, the interpretation and actualization of religious dogma isn't uniform. "But the holy books condone violence!" he says. Yes and no. For every Christian who bombs an abortion clinic, there's one who thinks "Thou shalt not kill" is Christ's primary message; for every Muslim who thinks jihad is physical warfare, there's one who thinks it's an internal struggle against one's baser nature.

He writes: "It is a telling fact that religious apologists who argue against atheism refuse to address the views I and others actually believe and advocate, and instead insist on judging us based on other people's views, views which we do not support in any way. Such tactics are an admission that the actual views we hold cannot be so easily refuted, and so they must argue by unfairly attempting to link us with positions that they can more easily attack."

Then he writes: "However, even when religious groups disavow the evils of their past, it is not unfair to point out that they still believe in and defend books that contain explicit endorsement of such violence. Nor is it unfair to point out when religious groups that no longer practice violence nevertheless still hold to the dogmatic rejection of dissent that has been the seed of tyranny so many times in the past."

At no point does the writer realize that in the second paragraph I quoted, he's doing exactly what he just claimed was unfair when done to him. In short, the essay rightly proposes that athiesm wasn't the cause for the atrocities he lists, but without giving religion the same practical, behind-the-scenes consideration for its misdeeds. Ultimately, he's praising humanism, not athiesm, and it's as possible to be a religious humanist as it is to be a secular one.
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']Or, I should say, lack therof. I am Atheist and just to make myself clear, I don't mean to trash talk religion at all. I've had strange occurences and it's really making me scratch my head.

First things first, day one. There's an odd group with bullhorns and the such outside of McDonalds. I peer from across the street after coming out of the restaurant I had dinner in and overhear that they are born-again Christians. They were singing and even trying to talk to the cars that stopped at the traffic light.
Now, maybe this was immature on my end (although at the time I found them to be yelling in bull horns and stopping people in cars immature) but after I got in my car, I drove by and shouted, "Religion is meaningless rhetoric and you are going to lead pointless lives!" This one guy simply smiled and waved, which I found odd.

Now, day two. I was getting out of work (probably about 20 miles away from where I was in day one) and I noticed an even stranger oddity. There was a man on the sidewalk, on his knees, with a giant Vash\Trigun cross over his shoulder. Just sitting there. I drove by and this time I decided not to shout anything immature since, you know, he was just chilling on the sidewalk with his cross.

The third day, I was driving to work and something in me strongly prompted me to look at the car that was ahead of me and its license plate. I did so and noticed the plate read, "R U SAVED."

I'm not making any of this up. These series of events have me questioning my belief system. Could I be wrong? Before this decision was very easy for me to make. But I just saw two strange events right in a row after some religious dude waved and smiled at me. I'm kind of freaked out. Advice? Also, I welcome the funny, smart ass, and serious replies. Thank you![/QUOTE]

Note - I didn't read any of the other responses because I don't really want mine to be tainted.

First, bravo to the guy who smiled and waved at you. That's a "good" religious person in my book and from what little of the Bible I understand, pretty much what Jesus would've done. Boo to you for being a dick to begin with but whatever, I know the feeling and I've done similar things before.

Second, sure you could be wrong. So what? If you think going to church is where you're being pushed, give it a shot. It works for tons of people. I don't really think it works for them because God is literally shaping them but it works because it makes them feel better about themselves. If you wind up not liking it or get weirded out, oh well, no big deal.

Anyhow, good luck.
 
I've got a question for other Christians out there -- do you believe that there may be other gods below your God? I ask because I have seen compelling arguments before about the Old Testamant specifically discussing the existance of other gods who, as YHWH points out, are beneath Him as He lists himself as the "God of Gods."

Also, how do you feel about the following issue that some friends of mine, (who later became atheists) about the perception that God is all-knowing AND free-will, i.e. if God knows exactly what you are or what you will do, how exactly is that free will since it's predefined?

I have my own answers to both of these questions...I'm just wondering what other people think of them, (specifically daroga :))
 
Alright, I'll bite again. ;)

When the Bible (especially the Old Testament) speaks about other gods, it's always in a very insulting way. A prime example are the latter chapters of Isaiah where God talks about how insane it is for someone to chop down a tree, use one part for cooking dinner and worshiping the other part. Likewise, challenging the idols to say something, whether good or bad, anything at all. It's not really acknowledging that there are other, lower, "demi-gods," as much as it is ridiculing the faith of the idolater.

The free-will concept is an interesting one. Addressing your specific question, note that you're talking about two different things. Foreknowledge is different than foreordaining. Just because I know that my cat is going to sleep all day doesn't mean that I caused her to sleep. God's knowledge in that he does know the future is different than ours, but the princple is the same. Because God knows the choices I'll make doesn't mean he made them for me or that I had any less actual choice in the matter.
 
[quote name='daroga']
The free-will concept is an interesting one. Addressing your specific question, note that you're talking about two different things. Foreknowledge is different than foreordaining. Just because I know that my cat is going to sleep all day doesn't mean that I caused her to sleep. God's knowledge in that he does know the future is different than ours, but the princple is the same. Because God knows the choices I'll make doesn't mean he made them for me or that I had any less actual choice in the matter.[/quote]Not exactly the same thing. Your knowing the routine of your cat is based on knowledge of her habits. It would be a rather significant demotion of God to have him go from knowing all to making very accurate predictions from past behaviour.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Not exactly the same thing. Your knowing the routine of your cat is based on knowledge of her habits. It would be a rather significant demotion of God to have him go from knowing all to making very accurate predictions from past behaviour.[/quote]Thus the qualifier that God's knowledge is different since I'm incapable of knowing the future with any certainy save for guesses on what I can observe. The point still stands, however. Be it God or men, knowing never imples causing.
 
[quote name='daroga']Be it God or men, knowing never imples causing.[/quote]You're getting ahead of yourself here. Let's see...

We have free will. God exists and knows all. Therefore, God knows exactly what we and every other thing, living or non-living, will do from here to eternity (Wasn't that a movie or something?).

Conclusion: Our choices are not truly free.

Assuming the starting premises are correct, that's where we stop - whether or not the final conclusion or correct. Whether or not this supposed lack of free will is caused by God or three old women on top of a mountain or the second-from-the-left toe on your right foot is not relevant at the moment.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']You're getting ahead of yourself here. Let's see...

We have free will. God exists and knows all. Therefore, God knows exactly what we and every other thing, living or non-living, will do from here to eternity (Wasn't that a movie or something?).

Conclusion: Our choices are not truly free.

Assuming the starting premises are correct, that's where we stop - whether or not the final conclusion or correct. Whether or not this supposed lack of free will is caused by God or three old women on top of a mountain or the second-from-the-left toe on your right foot is not relevant at the moment.[/quote]I can see that. My point was basically that the existence of God's omniscience doesn't automatically negate our free will, which was the false conclusion drawn above. Whether or not mankind has a free will and to what extent is another topic entirely.
 
[quote name='daroga']My point was basically that the existence of God's omniscience doesn't automatically negate our free will, which was the false conclusion drawn above.[/quote]Except that what you proved was that omniscience doesn't mean that God causes what happens (and even then, there are counter-arguments...).
 
Wasn't the arguement brought for that God's omniscience was a causality of the events in people's lives? Or did I misread it?
 
Perhaps I've been reading you wrong, but it seems that we're stuck on one of your earlier statements: "Because God knows the choices I'll make doesn't mean he made them for me". That bit is irrelevant - the question is about whether free will and omniscience are contradictory. Ignore cause - God, the three Fates, your toe. I don't expect your answer to differ any, of course...
 
Ok... I have a feeling we're talking past each other, but here goes:

Are they contradictory? No.

What next in the discussion?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Who put the bomp in the bomp-shoo-bomp-shoo-bomp?[/quote]

Why God did, of course.

I can see how you can say that knowing the future doesn't mean there isn't any free will since you're saying that you know that those people will freely choose to do this and that. But at the same time knowing they will do it means that they can't not do it, and can't choose any other thing to do, so I get how that can negate free will in that sense. Am I missing any parts? What is the conclusion then?

I don't exactly believe in free will anyway. If you had the knowledge of all factors acting on a person I think you could 100% accurately predict what that person would do, which means they aren't really choosing it, it's a result of those factors.
 
Maybe a better analogy is a book (though only vaguely). When it comes to our decisions, God isn't the author, he's the re-reader. Someone re-reading a book knows exactly what each person is going to do, but that doesn't mean they caused it to happen. (Yup, the analogy limps along as much as you're thinking it does.)

I'm a little hesitant to use language like that because in a lot of ways God IS the author. He planned out and executed the plan to send the Messiah to save the world from their sins, to rescue mankind from hell and to restore heaven to us.

Sin is really at the root of a lot of free will questions for the Christian. We are free in non-spiritual things (what will I eat? what will I wear? whom will I marry? where shall I work?). But in terms of coming to faith, we can't choose that (a statement which promptly excludes me from a large portion of Christianity, I understand). That's the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to create faith in a person's heart through the Word and/or Baptism.

The real issue here I think is the nature of omniscience, something we can't even pretend to really understand. We are always learning, always experiencing. So, truly knowing all-things ranks up there with the concept of "eternal" in mind-blowing aspects, be it God or matter or whatever one may want to assign that adjective to. We only know of things beginning and ending. Everlasting is hard enough to understand, but something with neither beginning nor end? Ouch.
 
[quote name='daroga']Maybe a better analogy is a book (though only vaguely). When it comes to our decisions, God isn't the author, he's the re-reader. Someone re-reading a book knows exactly what each person is going to do, but that doesn't mean they caused it to happen. (Yup, the analogy limps along as much as you're thinking it does.)

I'm a little hesitant to use language like that because in a lot of ways God IS the author. He planned out and executed the plan to send the Messiah to save the world from their sins, to rescue mankind from hell and to restore heaven to us.
[/quote]Um. You realize that when you take your second paragraph into account, that analogy actually goes against what you're arguing for, right?
 
I think he's going into a Calvinistic kind of thing, but then not? I dunno. daroga, are you saying what I think you're saying? :p Are people predestined so that only a few are chosen to be saved? Is that what you're saying?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Um. You realize that when you take your second paragraph into account, that analogy actually goes against what you're arguing for, right?[/quote]Yeah, it's a difficult thought to express--one that I'm failing miserably at doing. If someone's got a more pointed question on the matter I might be able to answer something, but for now I'm floundering not with the concept but with how to word it. :p

And for further evidence of my not communicating well, I wasn't even trying to touch the Calvinst Double Predestination nor the Biblical Election/Single Predestination. The point was that while God does step into human history very directly at times (namely, to carry out his plan of salvation), that neither impedes nor brings into question the concept of free will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top