Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1141142144146147327

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    nickcave wrote: »
    Very well then: what is your position on original sin, and the condition of man? Of what denomination are you or which are you closest to?
    I believe that human beings are born with an inward bias or tendency towards sin. This is the concept of original sin as understood by most Arminian or Wesleyan Christians such as Methodists, Salvation Army, Nazarenes and many Pentecostal denominations. By this understanding, we may have an inherent attraction towards sin, but we are fully responsible for each sinful act we choose to commit. Also, by this understanding, we are not guilty of anyone else's sin - just our own.
    Quantify this - tell me what I assumed and where I assumed it. Expect difficulty.
    I expect difficulty every time I explain theological concepts to those who are rather uninformed in that field. But don't worry - that's my job. :)

    You keep referring to salvation as a reward. That is most emphatically not what I believe.
    Yes, again thanks for that. Now we're back to my 'irrelevant' analogy - why does your opinion on whether or not salvation is deserved affect it being or not being a reward?

    re·ward/riˈwôrd/
    Noun: A thing given in recognition of service, effort, or achievement.
    Verb: Make a gift of something to (someone) in recognition of their services, efforts, or achievements.


    The message of the Christian Gospel is that salvation is given on the basis of what Christ has done, not in recognition of any achievement, effort, or service we could ever do.
    But to move on, is accepting God's way not a 'good action', then?
    Not at all. No more than social welfare is a reward that you earn by signing on.

    If a stranger approached me and offered me a €50 note, would you say I earned a reward by not pushing the gift away?


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,137 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    PDN wrote: »
    History suggests otherwise.

    That isn't actually true. Fighting occurs in tribes pretty frequently. They do, of course, tend to have more inner cohesion when they are busy slaughtering outsiders.

    Again, history suggests otherwise. In fact there have only been a tiny minority of times and places in history where we could have a public discussion like this without at least one of us ending up being burned at the stake or sent to a gulag.

    So we can agree that religion has no effect on stopping any of that? Because these things happened in countries with religion too.
    PDN wrote: »
    I have repeatedly asked (in bold face and red ink, no less) for someone to demonstrate why it isn't. So far the silence is deafening.

    Not in any of the posts in which you've responded to me (I tend to skim over ones I'm not involved in). But like I said, it's technically free will, but the choices are not fair. He is forcing the choice on you. Live how he wants you to live, or suffer the consequences. Speaking of questions going unanswered, Why have a punishment at all? Why have Hell? What purpose does it serve if not to give eternal souls a place to suffer eternal suffering?

    You may not see Heaven as a reward and you may call it an undeserved gift, but gifts aren't usually given only when you've done something someone else wants you to do, and knowing that you'd get the gift once you've done it. That's a reward.
    PDN wrote: »
    God tells people what is right and what is wrong, and sends prophets and messengers to enncourage people to choose the right, and warns us of the consequences of our choices. Not only that, He comes to earth in the Person of Jesus and suffers horrendously to give us an opportunity to choose a better path. All of this is intervention - but it is clearly compatible with allowing free will, as evidenced by the many people who still spurn Him.

    And again, why are there consequences? Why create Hell? He has the power to not send souls to Hell. Why give people free will and punish them, eternally, for not doing with it what he wants you to do with it. And there's a reason why I've pointed out several times that the first three commandments are about worshipping him, because he tells people what is right or wrong, and he chooses to tell people that worshipping him is right, and not worshipping him is wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Penn wrote: »
    So we can agree that religion has no effect on stopping any of that? Because these things happened in countries with religion too.
    Religion frequently makes the problem much worse. If you're looking to argue with someone who holds the position that all and any religion is beneficial then you're likely to be disappointed.
    Not in any of the posts in which you've responded to me (I tend to skim over ones I'm not involved in). But like I said, it's technically free will, but the choices are not fair. He is forcing the choice on you. Live how he wants you to live, or suffer the consequences.
    So you keep saying - but you seeing a choice as unfair or unequal does not equate to a denial of free will.
    Speaking of questions going unanswered, Why have a punishment at all? Why have Hell? What purpose does it serve if not to give eternal souls a place to suffer eternal suffering?
    I think I've answered that many times by now. I see hell as the absence of God's presence. It serves the purpose of granting the wishes of those who reject the opportunity to be in His presence.
    You may not see Heaven as a reward and you may call it an undeserved gift, but gifts aren't usually given only when you've done something someone else wants you to do, and knowing that you'd get the gift once you've done it. That's a reward.
    Sorry, you're wrong there. Gifts are usually given on the basis that you have to accept the gift in order to have it.
    And again, why are there consequences? Why create Hell? He has the power to not send souls to Hell. Why give people free will and punish them, eternally, for not doing with it what he wants you to do with it?
    There's really not much point in asking me questions if you repeatedly ignore my answers, is there?

    I've already stated several times that hell may be your creation rather than God's. He can give you a beautiful garden, but humans will manage to turn it into a Dachau. Unfettered free will is all that it would take.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,137 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I'm sorry, but a lot of that is based on what your interpretation or my interpretation of Hell is. And this is a point I've come back to many times throughout this thread: Religion is too ambiguous. When so many aspects of what is essentially the same religion are so open to people's interpretations, then what is the point of religion? How can anyone try to live their lives in accordance with God's wishes when so many people have different interpretations of what God's wishes are?

    At this point, I'm bowing out of here (though as ever, I will return when I'm bored)


  • Registered Users Posts: 300 ✭✭nickcave


    PDN wrote: »
    I believe that human beings are born with an inward bias or tendency towards sin.
    A tendency towards sin, but not born in sin. Are there then people who are not born in sin, are capable of sin, but do not sin? And some of those non-sinners who do not follow God, or have never heard of Christianity? If so, what afterlife awaits them? If not, is sin then inevitable? If it is inevitable, as a result of human nature say, then how is it a choice at all? Either we can choose to not be sinners, or we cannot choose.
    You keep referring to salvation as a reward. That is most emphatically not what I believe.
    I asked you to quantify your claim that I had misrepresented you. I told you you wouldn't be able to find any case of that. Let's move on.

    re·ward/riˈwôrd/
    Noun: A thing given in recognition of service, effort, or achievement.
    Verb: Make a gift of something to (someone) in recognition of their services, efforts, or achievements.


    See also 'award' :D
    The message of the Christian Gospel is that salvation is given on the basis of what Christ has done, not in recognition of any achievement, effort, or service we could ever do.
    Why, then, are we not all saved? If there is no action that who are saved take that those who are damned do not take, I mean?
    If a stranger approached me and offered me a €50 note, would you say I earned a reward by not pushing the gift away?
    No, but if you accepted an offer of €50 in exchange for following that person for some specified duration, to be paid out on completion of the contract, then yes.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    nickcave wrote: »
    A tendency towards sin, but not born in sin. Are there then people who are not born in sin, are capable of sin, but do not sin? And some of those non-sinners who do not follow God, or have never heard of Christianity? If so, what afterlife awaits them?

    Yes, I believe there are. Many young infants would fit your description.

    What afterlife awaits them? I believe that they spend eternity in God's presence.
    If not, is sin then inevitable? If it is inevitable, as a result of human nature say, then how is it a choice at all? Either we can choose to not be sinners, or we cannot choose.
    Again, the Gospel does not deal with hypotheticals but with real situations. All of us, at one point or another (and usually, if we're honest, a heck of a lot of times) have chosen to sin. And we are responsible for our choices. Original sin, that bias or tendency towards sin which we inherited, sooner or later ends up leading (but not forcing) us into making wrong choices.
    I asked you to quantify your claim that I had misrepresented you. I told you you wouldn't be able to find any case of that. Let's move on.
    Then I'm sorry. When you said there was a contradiction in my argument, I understood that as meaning a contradiction between two positions that I had taken. I hadn't realised that you were using 'contradiction' to mean that something I believed was contradictory to your unbeliever's misunderstanding of Christianity. But fair enough, we'll move along.
    Why, then, are we not all saved? If there is no action that who are saved take that those who are damned do not take, I mean?
    Some are not saved because they reject the gift.
    No, but if you accepted an offer of €50 in exchange for following that person for some specified duration, to be paid out on completion of the contract, then yes.
    And that does not apply to the Gospel. Your misunderstandings are showing again.

    To be saved is to accept the free gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. There is no contract to be completed before you receive the gift. The New Testament states very clearly that when you accept this salvation then you have already passed from death to life.

    The Gospel also declares that, once you have accepted this gift, then God gives you His Holy Spirit - an experience that theologians call regeneration (and the apostle Peter called being born again). A natural result of this regeneration is that your lifestyle will change, producing good works, and you will follow Jesus. But the New Testament is very clear on this point, such a change of heart follows salvation, not vice versa.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Penn wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but a lot of that is based on what your interpretation or my interpretation of Hell is. And this is a point I've come back to many times throughout this thread: Religion is too ambiguous. When so many aspects of what is essentially the same religion are so open to people's interpretations, then what is the point of religion? How can anyone try to live their lives in accordance with God's wishes when so many people have different interpretations of what God's wishes are?

    At this point, I'm bowing out of here (though as ever, I will return when I'm bored)

    That's the way it is, Christians have different opinions on different things and we think things through for ourselves rather than all subscribing to a monolithic North-Korean style groupthink. I do appreciate, however, that such intellectual freedom and variety of opinions is frustrating for anyone wanting to set up a lazy strawman with stereotypes drawn from the drivel written by Dawkins, Hitchens et al.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Ah, you're back.

    So, once again, how exactly is an interventionist God contradictory to the notion of free will? (Please note, saying "God is different" is not actually an answer to the question).
    ''

    You just explained it perfectly yourself, so there is no need for me to reapeat yours words again .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    ''

    You just explained it perfectly yourself, so there is no need for me to reapeat yours words again .

    So you aren't going to answer the question then?

    So, once again, how exactly is an interventionist God contradictory to the notion of free will? (Please note, saying "God is different" is not actually an answer to the question).

    I'm getting that sense of Déjà vu.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,137 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    PDN wrote: »
    That's the way it is, Christians have different opinions on different things and we think things through for ourselves rather than all subscribing to a monolithic North-Korean style groupthink. I do appreciate, however, that such intellectual freedom and variety of opinions is frustrating for anyone wanting to set up a lazy strawman with stereotypes drawn from the drivel written by Dawkins, Hitchens et al.

    Want to know a secret? I've never read any Dawkins or Hitchens book. At all. Not even a chapter. Sshhh... Don't tell anyone.

    Perhaps it's why you countered my points with some good arguments. You see, I'm pretty much just thinking out loud as I go along. Someone makes a point, I give my own response to it. What I think.

    Unlike some, I don't need a book to tell me what I should think


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 300 ✭✭nickcave


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, I believe there are. Many young infants would fit your description.
    The very young do not fit my description - 'Capable of sin, but does not sin'. They cannot make rational choices.

    Any adults/people who are capable of choice?
    What afterlife awaits them? I believe that they spend eternity in God's presence.
    Which would be in itself a path determined for them - one which they did not and could not choose.
    When you said there was a contradiction in my argument
    I did not.
    Some are not saved because they reject the gift.
    rather than accepting it? You're not convincing me here.
    To be saved is to accept the free gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. There is no contract to be completed before you receive the gift. The New Testament states very clearly that when you accept this salvation then you have already passed from death to life.

    The Gospel also declares that, once you have accepted this gift, then God gives you His Holy Spirit - an experience that theologians call regeneration (and the apostle Peter called being born again). A natural result of this regeneration is that your lifestyle will change, producing good works, and you will follow Jesus. But the New Testament is very clear on this point, such a change of heart follows salvation, not vice versa.
    We're talking about after-life, not salvation in the 'born-again' sense. And in that sense you have to live your life in God's way in order to receive the reward of everlasting life in Heaven. That is a contract. You mentioned Hitler etc. How do you know that Hitler is not in heaven? Had it something to do with the way he lived his life?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    So you aren't going to answer the question then?

    So, once again, how exactly is an interventionist God contradictory to the notion of free will? (Please note, saying "God is different" is not actually an answer to the question).

    I'm getting that sense of Déjà vu.

    Here is the perfect explanation -

    So now you're complaining because your free will has consequences? If it was devoid of consequences then it wouldn't really be free will at all, would it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Ah, you're back.

    So, once again, how exactly is an interventionist God contradictory to the notion of free will? (Please note, saying "God is different" is not actually an answer to the question).

    If God intervened any time I was about to sin, and thus made it so that I could never sin, do you believe this would be contrary to the notion of free will, since it is removes the option to choose to sin (or more specifically takes away the need to choose not to)?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Here is the perfect explanation -

    So now you're complaining because your free will has consequences? If it was devoid of consequences then it wouldn't really be free will at all, would it?

    Ok, Marien, you're going to have to explain what the connection is here. Because that is like saying that 4+6=Blue.

    Free will has consequences. An interventionist God is perfectly compatible with free will. The fact that free will has consequences doesn't change that fact one iota.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    If God intervened any time I was about to sin, and thus made it so that I could never sin, do you believe this would be contrary to the notion of free will, since it is removes the option to choose to sin (or more specifically takes away the need to choose not to)?

    That would depend on the circumstances.

    For example, if God kept intervening uninvited and thwarting your will, then that would be contrary to the notion of free will.

    However, a very different scenario would be where you prayed to God and asked Him to intervene and stop you sinning. In that case God would be helping you, despite your temptations to the contrary, to do what you really want. Therefore, in that scenario, God is actually enhancing your free will be helping you in your stated goal to be free of something that is binding or enslaving you.

    A simple analogy might explain this better. My second child was born with a severe, and ultimately fatal, handicap and her doctors told us that there was a 25% risk that any subsequent children would have the same condition. Therefore I made the decision to get a vasectomy. In this case the surgeon was not interfering with my free will - he was acting at my request.

    But imagine I lived in a totalitarian atheist regime where they wanted to impose a limit on the number of children born, and where I was forced to have a vasectomy. In that case the surgeon would be interfering with my free will, since I had not requested him to perform the operation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Ok, Marien, you're going to have to explain what the connection is here. Because that is like saying that 4+6=Blue.

    Free will has consequences. An interventionist God is perfectly compatible with free will. The fact that free will has consequences doesn't change that fact one iota.

    -In the general run of things you are perfectly correct and so back to my question on prayer

    -'' Is the idea of prayer a call for God to interfere with free will ? ''

    And the example of the person becoming an addict by the exercise of free will and the consequence - addiction.

    So a prayer to remove that addiction is calling for an interventionist God in that specific case ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    nickcave wrote: »
    The very young do not fit my description - 'Capable of sin, but does not sin'. They cannot make rational choices.

    Any adults/people who are capable of choice?

    No, I think that our sinning is pretty much universal (with the exception of Jesus, of course).

    You are making a category error here, I believe, in that you are mixing up two separate issues. In life we don't punish or penalise people for being bad people - we punish or penalise them for doing bad things.

    So, for example, Fred Phelps is a nasty mean-minded individual. Even if the fear of the law restrained him from breaking any laws - he is still a scumbag. But the law can't punish someone for simply being unpleasant. But if he breaks the law then he incurs the consequent penalties. He can't hold his hands up in the air and say, "It's not my fault - I can't help it because I'm a scumbag."

    Sin incurs a penalty, not because we are sinful people, but because we commit sins. We don't deserve eternal separation from God because we are sinners - we deserve eternal separation because we have sinned.
    Which would be in itself a path determined for them - one which they did not and could not choose.
    Indeed, and such is the unfairness of life. Just as a baby might receive life-saving surgery without choosing to do so. Just as my mother fed me without me having any say in the matter.
    rather than accepting it? You're not convincing me here.
    I'm sure I'm not, but I think that can more plausibly be ascribed to your biases than to any defect in my argument. :)
    We're talking about after-life, not salvation in the 'born-again' sense.
    No we're not. This forum is for the discussion of Christian belief - and the Christian position is that eternal life begins when you become a Christian.

    You may want to artificially separate the two - but in that case we would be discussing your misconceptions rather than discussing Christian beliefs.
    And in that sense you have to live your life in God's way in order to receive the reward of everlasting life in Heaven. That is a contract.
    Again, there's not much point me discussing your erroneous misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. I'm happy to discuss my beliefs as a Christian, and they certainly don't match what you just said.
    You mentioned Hitler etc. How do you know that Hitler is not in heaven? Had it something to do with the way he lived his life?
    I can't actually be sure that Hitler isn't in heaven. If he genuinely repented in his dying moments and accepted the Gospel then I see no reason why he would be in hell. I doubt it happpened that way in the bunker, so I assume he'll probably go to hell, but I may be wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    -In the general run of things you are perfectly correct and so back to my question on prayer

    -'' Is the idea of prayer a call for God to interfere with free will ? ''

    And the example of the person becoming an addict by the exercise of free will and the consequence - addiction.

    So a prayer to remove that addiction is calling for an interventionist God in that specific case ?

    Addiction is a bondage that forces you to do things you don't actually want to do (I speak from personal experience here). I think one could reasonably argue that having an addiction removed, and therefore being free to choose whether to take drugs or not without such an overwhelming compulsion, is an enhancement of one's free will.

    I think the only way in which it could be viewed as a denial of free will would be if the addict enjoys being an addict and would not want his/her addiction to be removed. In over 30 years of being a Christian, including many long hours working with addicts, I can honestly say that I've never encountered such a scenario.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Addiction is a bondage that forces you to do things you don't actually want to do (I speak from personal experience here). I think one could reasonably argue that having an addiction removed, and therefore being free to choose whether to take drugs or not without such an overwhelming compulsion, is an enhancement of one's free will.

    I think the only way in which it could be viewed as a denial of free will would be if the addict enjoys being an addict and would not want his/her addiction to be removed. In over 30 years of being a Christian, including many long hours working with addicts, I can honestly say that I've never encountered such a scenario.


    In a came to believe that a power greater than ourselves restored us to sanity kind of way ? And there is no question that having the addiction removed must make for a better human being and in better shape to correctly use their free will next time.

    But the question still stands though- perhaps a better example might be of an addict refusing to accept counselling and a mother/wife/friend praying for a change of heart.

    Just on a side note I have known quite a few people who ''enjoyed'' their addiction, some until it was just too late.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Penn wrote: »
    philologos wrote: »
    Penn: It would look like that from a perspective that we think that God's judgement is unfair or unjust. Actually, if we look at it honestly, we've all done wrong and we all deserve to be punished for it. We've all despised God in our daily lives, we've all shown that we have really hated Him.

    And that sounds fair and just to you? If we've all "done wrong and deserve to be punished" just for not worshipping God enough, again, that's on God, not us. God is the one who decided that people should be punished for that. God is the one who decided that that is wrong.

    I ask again, why is there a punishment?
    God actually is unfair only in so far as He has offered anyone forgiveness. What would be just would be if we all were condemned before Him.

    Punishment exists because God is just. Much as rapists are sentenced so are we. Thankfully for those who trust in Jesus God's full wrath was satisfied through Him. For those who reject God's mercy unless they repent there will tragically be condemnation.

    To ask why punishment exists or why Jesus had to die suggests to me that you don't understand how serious sin is and how serious the rejection of God is.

    God has been more than fair to us. Pinning the blame on Him for what is wrong with us is what is ridiculous and absurd if you unfold the truth and look at it square in the eye.

    That's what caused me to see the weight of my sin and realise there is only one way to forgiveness that is through King Jesus.

    Every day I'm thankful that He rescued me even when I lived in contempt of His loving rule.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    philologos wrote: »
    God actually is unfair only in so far as He has offered anyone forgiveness. What would be just would be if we all were condemned before Him.

    Punishment exists because God is just. Much as rapists are sentenced so are we. Thankfully for those who trust in Jesus God's full wrath was satisfied through Him. For those who reject God's mercy unless they repent there will tragically be condemnation.

    To ask why punishment exists or why Jesus had to die suggests to me that you don't understand how serious sin is and how serious the rejection of God is.

    God has been more than fair to us. Pinning the blame on Him for what is wrong with us is what is ridiculous and absurd if you unfold the truth and look at it square in the eye.

    That's what caused me to see the weight of my sin and realise there is only one way to forgiveness that is through King Jesus.

    Every day I'm thankful that He rescued me even when I lived in contempt of His loving rule.

    With the parts I've highlighted, you realize that no one, not even God, can be both just and merciful, at least in the terms that we as humans have defined them (in which case you'll have to inform us of the definitions you're using.) It's the Just vs. Mercy argument:
    1. An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
    2. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
    3. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
    Ergo, he must be one, the other or neither....

    You said we're pinning the blame on God for what is wrong with us? Well did God not supposedly create us and give us our souls, our free will, our ability to reason and understand the evidence before us? Would he not have realized by giving us free will and then hiding away for 2000 years (if not longer), some of his creations may turn away from him?

    And how is an infinite punishment for a finite crime just? Is locking your children away in a torture dungeon in your home for not loving you just? I think it's a horrible act and is morally reprehensible and I believe anyone who thinks that the above about it, is more moral than the God of the Bible. There is no moral standard in which you, me or anyone, including God, can look at that statement and say ''That person was morally correct in his decision.''

    Remember the Josef Fritzl case? Was he just in the punishment of his daughter if he thought she didn't love him?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    -In the general run of things you are perfectly correct and so back to my question on prayer

    -'' Is the idea of prayer a call for God to interfere with free will ? ''

    And the example of the person becoming an addict by the exercise of free will and the consequence - addiction.

    So a prayer to remove that addiction is calling for an interventionist God in that specific case ?

    Here again you are rigging the question and making special cases.

    It has been pointed out.
    1. One can not argue from the particular to the general
    2. If you are going to define intervention =removal of free will and then ask "does intervention (which we have already defined as removing free will) remove free will or not?" then you are in a circular argument.

    a prayer to remove addiction is calling for intervention yes.
    Is it removing free will?
    Well if you are going to define "intervention" = "removing free will" in this specific case or general then if you can't see your problem what can anyone say to that?

    Intervention does not = removal of free will! Do you understand that?

    marienbad wrote: »
    In a came to believe that a power greater than ourselves restored us to sanity kind of way ? And there is no question that having the addiction removed must make for a better human being and in better shape to correctly use their free will next time.

    But the question still stands though- perhaps a better example might be of an addict refusing to accept counselling and a mother/wife/friend praying for a change of heart.

    What question ? Whether intervention = removal of free will? You have not shown it does in any way!

    Just on a side note I have known quite a few people who ''enjoyed'' their addiction, some until it was just too late.

    why do you have "enjoyed" in quotes then?
    Playing with words and suggesting someone "high" is making a coherent decision to be like that forever isn't a really strong argument.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Here again you are rigging the question and making special cases.

    It has been pointed out.
    1. One can not argue from the particular to the general
    2. If you are going to define intervention =removal of free will and then ask "does intervention (which we have already defined as removing free will) remove free will or not?" then you are in a circular argument.

    a prayer to remove addiction is calling for intervention yes.
    Is it removing free will?
    Well if you are going to define "intervention" = "removing free will" in this specific case or general then if you can't see your problem what can anyone say to that?



    Intervention does not = removal of free will! Do you understand that?




    What question ? Whether intervention = removal of free will? You have not shown it does in any way!




    why do you have "enjoyed" in quotes then?
    Playing with words and suggesting someone "high" is making a coherent decision to be like that forever isn't a really strong argument.

    I can only assume from your question on ''enjoyed'' you don't really read my post or the preceeding posts by PDN .


    If the outcome of a free- willed choice/decision is changed from what it other wise would be and through no imput from the original decision maker by an outside agency- then is that any longer a choice made from free will ?

    Why would I show whether intervention=removal of free will when that is the guts of the question I am asking ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Barr125 wrote: »
    With the parts I've highlighted, you realize that no one, not even God, can be both just and merciful, at least in the terms that we as humans have defined them (in which case you'll have to inform us of the definitions you're using.) It's the Just vs. Mercy argument:
    1. An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
    2. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
    3. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
    Ergo, he must be one, the other or neither....

    Not so. An example would be a judge who tries a case of a wounded war hero who has fallen on hard times and robbed from a supermarket in order to feed himself. The judge, being just, applies the law to the war hero just as he would anyone else and imposes a heavy fine. Then the judge, because he is merciful, pays the war hero's fine for him from his own pocket.

    And that is a faint picture of what God has done for us. He is totally just in imposing the penalty for sin - but then He comes in the Person of Jesus Christ and suffers the pains of hell in our stead.

    Perfect Justice + Perfect Mercy = Amazing Grace

    Or, as the old hymn of the 1904 Welsh revival puts it:

    On the mount of crucifixion,
    Fountains opened deep and wide;
    Through the floodgates of God’s mercy
    Flowed a vast and gracious tide.
    Grace and love, like mighty rivers,
    Poured incessant from above,
    And Heav’n’s peace and perfect justice
    Kissed a guilty world in love
    .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I don't see the issue with God being both just and merciful.

    God is just insofar as He expects sin to be punished or atoned for.
    God is merciful insofar as He has given forgiveness to mankind by belief and trust in Jesus Christ and His saving death on the cross.

    If one accepts this forgiveness - Jesus has atoned for the sins of mankind by His crucifixion.

    If one doesn't accept this forgiveness - one must be punished as if Jesus had done nothing.

    God is still just, and God is still merciful.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »

    If the outcome of a free- willed choice/decision is changed from what it other wise would be and through no imput from the original decision maker by an outside agency- then is that any longer a choice made from free will ?

    ALL outcomes of ALL choices may be different. Some may be the same. Assuming the decision maker is unaware of the change, changing the possible outcomes in no way affect the choice.

    In the case you mention where the decision maker is aware of a possible changing outcome based n interference, ff course one can use threat cohesion or inducement whether reward or bribery to affect a choice but that still isnt removing the free choice is it?
    Why would I show whether intervention=removal of free will when that is the guts of the question I am asking ?

    Exactly! Im just pointing out that assuming in advance the thing you are trying to prove as a basis to prove it is circular reasoning.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    So we can agree that religion has no effect on stopping any of that? Because these things happened in countries with religion too.

    We can agree your three suppositions about history were wrong and based on the points made you have jumped off onto another supposition. which is also wrong by the way.The fact that they happen in religious countries does not mean religion had no effect whatsoever. Things may happen to different degrees for example and the lesser degree may be effected by religion.

    And again, why are there consequences? Why create Hell? He has the power to not send souls to Hell. Why give people free will and punish them, eternally, for not doing with it what he wants you to do with it.

    You jump off a tall building. consequence? -you hit the ground.
    Why should God not just change gravity to allow you to fly?
    Or to allow everyone to be immortal and not experience pain?

    Lets not go into the why doesn't God change logic and reason so all your defeated suppositions are correct.
    And there's a reason why I've pointed out several times that the first three commandments are about worshipping him, because he tells people what is right or wrong, and he chooses to tell people that worshipping him is right, and not worshipping him is wrong.

    Oops! there you go changing logic and reason for God!
    Apparently earlier it was human nature that tribes behaved in certain ways or that people are scientifically predisposed to certain tendencies. How can you believe nature or the laws of science can influence a tendency to behave in a certain way but God can't? If God replaces nature then God is rigging the game? But if nature does it it is a scientific tendency?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1 dannman4


    theres gota be somtin out there cudn be just this world.


  • Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    PDN wrote: »
    Not so. An example would be a judge who tries a case of a wounded war hero who has fallen on hard times and robbed from a supermarket in order to feed himself. The judge, being just, applies the law to the war hero just as he would anyone else and imposes a heavy fine. Then the judge, because he is merciful, pays the war hero's fine for him from his own pocket.

    And that is a faint picture of what God has done for us. He is totally just in imposing the penalty for sin - but then He comes in the Person of Jesus Christ and suffers the pains of hell in our stead.

    The judge you've described is just right up until the point he reaches into his own pocket and uses his own money to pay the fine. At that point, he ceases being just and becomes merciful. As I said, you can only be one or the other, not both. Also you omitted an important part so I'll FYP:

    An example would be a judge who tries a case of a wounded war hero who has fallen on hard times and robbed from a supermarket in order to feed himself. The judge, being just, applies the law to the war hero just as he would anyone else and imposes a heavy fine. Then the judge decrees that the war hero grovel at his feet and beg for forgiveness or he will impose the fine. So if:
    1) the war hero does so, the judge will forgive him and pay the fine for him (as you said.)

    2) the war hero refuses and the judge declares that the war hero pays this fine every week for the rest of his life.

    I feel that the above is a more accurate representation of the ''mercy and justice'' of God. He chooses when and who to be merciful to, i.e. those who worship him. That's not mercy, that's selectivity.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    dannman4 wrote: »
    theres gota be somtin out there cudn be just this world.

    If you're referring to life on other planets, it is highly possible and probable. With the size of the universe and number of other galaxies, star systems, etc. then life in some form could exist on some other planet.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement