PDN wrote: » Nobody is a person 'like everyone else'. Everyone is different. The President of a country is not like anyone else, but if he grants a request for you that does not somehow invalidate your free will. You made the statement that somehow God answering a request is interference with free will. I've asked you to show some semblence of logic or reason to justify that extraordinary claim. So far you've not done so, but have simply advanced the irrelevant notion that God is somehow different. Answered prayer is someone granting a request. I'm waiting to hear some coherent reason why that contravenes free will.
marienbad wrote: » Can you address the example I have given then using the rationale above ? Thanks
PDN wrote: » If someone is a drug addict, then those praying for them do not expect God to obliterate the addict's free will and force them to change their ways whether they want to or not. Their prayer would more be that God would confront the addict in some way with the consequences of their actions, thereby giving them the opportunity to make better decisions. This would be analogous to someone saying to me, "Would you have a wee word with my son - maybe he'll listen to you and realise that his lifestyle is destructive." In each case no-one's free will has been contravened. Giving someone an opportunity to consider their choices, or presenting new information to them, does not take away their power to choose.
marienbad wrote: » That is just your interpretation of prayer though, it can vary from person to person.
An obvious example one be people that go to Lourdes and pray for an affliction to be removed- usually a life threatening illness - now I accept that most of those illnesses are not caused by the result of poor choices but some are. In those cases that are the result of life style choices ( I know - horrible phrasing ) is not prayer a request to God to interfere with the consequence of free will ?
Now back to the addiction example, sure you can have another person have a word with your son but that is not the same as God having a word with your son
PDN wrote: » Well you are perfectly free to go and debate that with a Christian who prays that God will do a Vulcan mind meld on an addict and force them, totally against their will, to radically alter their behaviour. However, in that case you'll probably have to look elsewhere, since I'm not aware of any Christians in this forum who correspond to that straw man you're trying to set up. Not at all. If you break the speed limit and then plead with the traffic cop not to give you a ticket, he may or may not show you mercy. But how on earth is he interfering with your free will if he takes pity on you and lets you off with a warning? Showing mercy to someone who requests it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean you've robbed them of their free will. Are you just pretending not to understand why that red herring is irrelevant? It doesn't matter who has the word - we are still free to disobey it. Unless you think that it is impossible to choose to disobey God - in which case there is no such thing as an atheist?
marienbad wrote: » That is just your interpretation of prayer though, it can vary from person to person. An obvious example one be people that go to Lourdes and pray for an affliction to be removed- usually a life threatening illness - now I accept that most of those illnesses are not caused by the result of poor choices but some are. In those cases that are the result of life style choices ( I know - horrible phrasing ) is not prayer a request to God to interfere with the consequence of free will ? Now back to the addiction example, sure you can have another person have a word with your son but that is not the same as God having a word with your son
marienbad wrote: » Is it amazing how little it takes to bring out the needless rudeness in you , but lets press on.
A garda, a friend next door or any human agency is not the same as, or comparible to God, at least not in the religion in which I grew up.
Now in that same religion people prayed for all sorts of things up to and including the direct interference in a persons choices or the result of those choices or the reversal of those choices .
Now if you don't agree with that belief system and think it is a misinterpretation - fine, just say so and lets just move on and let someone who grew up in that environment enlighten me.
PDN wrote: » All it takes is for someone to keep on stating non-sequiturs, persistently ignore requests to give a coherent reason for doing so, and to repeat inane red herrings. So I bite my tongue, refrain from commenting on how I really feel about such behaviour, and somehow I'm being rude? But let's press on. So you keep saying - but you have given us no coherent reason why God being different from a garda somehow causes an illogical position to become logical. If someone gives you advice, and you have the free will to follow or reject that advice, then how is your free will being interfered with? Please give us something better than "Well, God is different". So you are seriously claiming that you grew up in a religion where people prayed that other individuals would be forced to think things against their will? Really? I don't the problem is your leaps of logic - not where anyone grew up.
marienbad wrote: » A garda, a friend next door or any human agency is not the same as, or comparible to God, at least not in the religion in which I grew up. Now if you don't agree with that belief system and think it is a misinterpretation - fine, just say so and lets just move on and let someone who grew up in that environment enlighten me.
dylonator wrote: »
marienbad wrote: » I am at a loss to understand all this, I really am , and can you take that on good faith . Why do you keep bringing human examples into it. No human agency is comparible to God and so such examples add nothing to the discussion.
Logic has absolutely nothing to do with it. And God is different - he is after all God not some Garda on traffic duty.
The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature... The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]
ISAW wrote: » Marien i have been over the christian view of god as fdistince to the Islamic view; the "no human is comparable" does not really was as an argument because of this. In other words if you are foing to say "god has different rules" then you cant compare things based on mans different rules of logic reason etc. Also as i have just pointed ut christian rationality suggests god does not have different rules or makes them up as he goes along to suit himself. As PDN has pointed out if you are going to argue on that basis then go and argue with a non Christian because it isnt a Christian position. And the relevance of that is? god makes or changes the rules to suit himself. We have been over that.http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html skip lots of examples Your examples are of people praying for something you might consider unreasonable. But the original point was about whether one can petition god and whether that removes free will. whether or not people pray for frivolous things is aside from the issue of whether actions by god remove free will.
philologos wrote: » marienbad: I don't understand your objection. Can you explain to us how someone asking God to work in their lives is a suspension of free will, given that they themselves have freely willed to ask God to do so?
philologos wrote: » So, if God grants what they freely willed, it is a violation of free will, how? It's worth pointing out that I don't believe in absolute free will. What free will we do have is only because God's sovereignty has allowed us that much. Having said that I don't think your question makes good sense.
PDN wrote: » I think you are the one missing the point. If I ask someone for something then they are free to give it to me or not - either way it does not violate anyone's free will. For example, I once needed money at 9am to pay a bill. I prayed for God to provide for my need. A friend, who knew nothing about that need, turned up at my house at midnight and explained that earlier in the evening, when they were praying, they felt God telling them they had to give me a sum of money. They handed me an envelope, and in that envelope was the exact sum I needed to pay my bill. No-one's free will was violated here. My friend was perfectly free to choose to act upon that feeling or to ignore it.
MrPudding wrote: » So you think that your friend, believing as he did that your god wanted him to give you money, had an actual realistic choice about whether or not to do so? Interesting. MrP
marienbad wrote: » Well if I am going to hell because I am an atheist by my own free willed choice then the addict is an addict by their own free willed choice . The choice and the consequence are inextricably linked and to interfere with either is an interference with free will , or so I would have thought ?
PDN wrote: » Not at all. If someone shares the Gospel with you, and if that leads you to change your mind, then that is simply giving you more opportunity to exercise your free will. PS. I know I'm probably wasting my time here since you're continuing to argue that "Since I'm referring to God here my arguments don't have to be coherent and logical because God is different". Nevertheless I keep posting in the hope that other, more reasoned readers, might see this.
marienbad wrote: » Well if I am going to hell because I am an atheist by my own free willed choice then the addict is an addict by their own free willed choice .
marienbad wrote: » The choice and the consequence are inextricably linked and to interfere with either is an interference with free will , or so I would have thought ?
marienbad wrote: » (snip) The choice and the consequence are inextricably linked and to interfere with either is an interference with free will , or so I would have thought ?
marienbad wrote: » I originally asked a simple question - is or can prayer be a request to God to interfere in the functioning or consequences of free will. It is not related to someone sharing the gospel with a person in order to give more opportunity to exercise your free will . I don't know how many different ways I can rephrase it for you.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » This is an entirely different objection. We aren't condemned by our belief or non-belief in God. We are condemned by our sins. Now if you think you are suggesting that you are an atheist by some other process than your own free choice I'd be interested to hear what it is. An atheism gene perhaps? I can't understand what your objection is, marienbad. Why is God interacting with you any different from other people doing the same? Can you outline how one is different from the other? Can you define what you mean by free will?
marienbad wrote: » ''The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.'' is as good a definition as any. Except that no such thing exists. No I don't suppose there is a atheist gene. But our non belief as a result of a choice is a sin , as in atheism is a deliberate turning away from God by the exercise of free will. And that is most definitely a mortal sin.No, to be a sin you would have to reject a god you believed in or in exchange for another god. Now the the result of that decision is Hell - and as we know ''abandon hope all ye who enter here''. But you would say God did'nt send the atheist there , the atheist did that all on his own - correct ? And he/she did so exercising their own free will. And Hell is the inextricable consequence of that choice. God did'nt make the addict - the person did and addiction is the consequence. Same with the homosexual ( to those that believe homosexuality is a choice of course)??? so many wrong assumptions! I am simply asking in those cases say of a mother praying for the addiction to be removed from her child for example , is a request for divine intervention ? And if so is it an interference with free will ? In the case of addiction no free will is being exercised so..... All this of course in the light that if there are no consequences there is no free will .
PDN wrote: » No, that might be what you meant to ask, but it isn't what you asked. You've added the 'can' bit afterwards. You asked if prayer was interference with free will. Numerous people have answered that straightforwardly by telling you that no, it isn't. You seem unwilling to accept this answer, but won't explain why.
