philologos wrote: » Your question seems to be based on the position that God cannot be sovereign over all Creation whilst humans are freely willed? Why do you think that's true?
marienbad wrote: » But God is'nt anyone else.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » No, God isn't anyone else. Who said otherwise, I wonder? You asked a seemingly string question and you got a straight answer. If you pray a petitionary prayer then it is because you want God to do something or act in a certain way. The clue is in the name. Now is this a genuine question or is there some other reasoning at play?
marienbad wrote: » So is a petitionary prayer a call to interfere with free will or the consequences of free will ?
ISAW wrote: » but he didn't! argument about what he didn't say has nothing to do with making a statement about rationality and backing it up by what he did say. the ideas that "god is good" and "god is reasonable" are two different things. no it does not seem reasonable at all. such a "watchmaker god" isnt the christian concept of god. See my last comment. Again you confalte two different issues 1. that god is good 2. that god is a hands off non interference god the christian god is 1 but not 2 Again all dealt with in the "problem of evil" arguments earlier. In your opinion. Like the 3gos ordered rpe" argument Im sure others will take you up on this. Please dont resort to trying to use the skeptics bible in an attempt to prove a point. some fairly well versed biblical scholars will dismantle your theology 101 thesis if you do. Restating the above argument see my above comments. Again restating the "watchmaker god" argument.
marienbad wrote: » Seeing as we seem to have ground to a halt on the historicity of Jesus and the bible can I ask another question ? Is the idea of prayer a call for God to interfere with free will ?
Wh1stler wrote: » I think it is more accurate to say that prayer is about getting God to prefer the will of one over another.
ISAW wrote: » Do you mean one only has a choice between two types of interference 1 with free will or 2. with the consequences of free will Isnt that a false dichotomy on the gro_unds of an excluded middle i.e. ther could be another choice -3? Or do you mean that A petitionary prayer is a call to interfere with free will or B. petitionary prayer is the consequences of free will Again that is a false dichotomy on the grounds of nonexclusivity i.e. it could be both A and B?
Wh1stler wrote: » Once again, you completely miss (evade) the point. People pray in order to subvert the free will of others. If God answers prayers then free will is rendered irrelevant.
Wh1stler wrote: » And if He doesn't answer prayers, God is irrelevant. Sticky, huh?
marienbad wrote: » By free will and the consequences of free will I mean the actions that have come about because of the exercise of free will , for example a person chooses to take heroin and as a consequence becomes an addict and prays for the removal of that addiction .
philologos wrote: » That surely isn't that great an example, because the addict by their free will - is asking for intervention by God.
philologos wrote: » ISAW: my point isn't that Christianity is irrational but it isn't based on Greek philosophy. Rather John explains Christianity to a Greek world much in the missionary I spoke to does in Thailand.
Wh1stler wrote: » You are only fooling yourself. God does not even know you exist. This has already been discussed. You are unknown to the God you worship. That is kind of sad.
Wh1stler wrote: » Because a whip can soon change your will. And the prospect of hell is like a whip. Let me ask you this: If you had a dream where God told you to kill your child, as in the case of Abraham, would you kill your child? Then you don't have free will do you? You simply do as your boss tells you. Religion is and always has been about subverting free-will.
ISAW wrote: » and my point is that Thai science or Indian science or African science is still Greek science. the rational part of science and Christian Theology does trace to Greek philosophy.
ISAW wrote: » Again this "callous god" would not be a christian interpretation And dont bring MY beliefs into this. We are not discussing them.
marienbad wrote: » Indeed he/she is philologos ( in a much as a addict still has free will , but that is another question alltogether) , but to intercede in that person's addiction is an interference of with the consequences of free will, is it not ?
PDN wrote: » Not at all. How can giving someone what they ask for possibly be construed as an interference with their free will? "I'm hungry. Please give me something to eat." "Ok, here's a sandwich." "Waaah! You interfered with my free will by giving me a sandwich!"
marienbad wrote: » As people we interfere with free will all the time. But God is'nt someone
PDN wrote: » That isn't an answer, it's a cop out. And, since you're on the Christianity Forum, you might take a note that God is someone - otherwise you're arguing about some non-Christian concept of God and you're in the wrong forum. How exactly does granting someone's request interfere with their free will? (Other than saying, "Well it just does because it's God")
marienbad wrote: » Not wishing to interfere in a family discussion but I would have thought it is not Greek science but just science- no ? What about the egyptians arabs chinese etc ?
marienbad wrote: » Come on PDN - are you seriously saying the God is a person like everyone else ?
It is not someone granting a request - like a bank giving a loan- Is it a divine interference with the consequence of a choice arrived at through the exercise of free will ? At least that is the question I am asking.
