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!"
tommy2bad wrote: » Again incorrect, freewill isn't dependent on consequences, nor consequences on free will. Actions cause consequences, not all actions are the result of free will either.
marienbad wrote: » The consequences are the result of the exercise of free will. Of course not all actions are as a result of free will, but some are and that is all it takes.
philologos wrote: » This isn't making much sense marienbad, I'm confused as to what logic you've used to get from someone freely asking God for intervention to this.
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.
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. 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)
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 ?
All this of course in the light that if there are no consequences there is no free will .
marienbad wrote: » Just take the example I have given in post 4231 or the one from Zombrex in 4232
marienbad wrote: » I would prefer not to bring human examples into it ISAW, as I don't think praying to God is the same as a friend having a word with someone or asking a Garda for a favour . Bringing the human element into is is just clouding the question.
So do people petition(pray) to God to take action that in effect will impinge on their free will or correct action that were the results of their free will. One example being the one of addiction.
We could get into the area of people with say a personality disorder or what is deemed a personality disorder. For example homosexuality - is to commit homosexual acts an exercise in free will ? and is a petition to restrain of remove those impulses a request to re-order free will .
marienbad wrote: » So my question still stands ( along with all the examples and clarifications) -''is the idea of prayer a call for God to interfere with free will''
ISAW wrote: » But intercessionary prayer IS about asking people (all be it dead ones) to help you by asking them to ask God. That is a false dichotomy. i.e the suggestion that either 1. people petition(pray) to God to take action that in effect will impinge on their free will or 2. people petition(pray) to God to correct actions that were the results of their free will. Asking God to assist you not to do wrong isn't removing your ability to chose to do wrong.
marienbad wrote: » Asking God to assist you not to do wrong if a person if faced with a choice to sin or not to sin is of course influencing the choice if God grants that assistance as that person is now stronger than than were before.
ISAW wrote: » Yes and it is a more difficult choice for a poor person not to steal food than it is for a rich person. You could influence them by giving them money to buy food. But either could still steal it. Influencing a choice isn't removing it.
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?
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.
This isn't making much sense marienbad, I'm confused as to what logic you've used to get from someone freely asking God for intervention to this.
philologos wrote: » 4231 still doesn't make sense. Someone has freely asked God to take away an addiction and He does, which is doing what they had freely willed. There's no logical difficulty whatsoever in your post. I've addressed your point 3 times (listed below) and I don't think you've adequately explained what is logically difficult:
philologos wrote: » The consequence is in line with the persons will in your example. The other analogy about hell is not even comparable to this one. Again, I'm really struggling to see how your point is logically coherent.
philologos wrote: » There's no Biblical basis for purgatory hence I don't believe in it. I don't believe anyone can pray on your behalf to be saved. Salvation only comes through believing and trusting in Jesus Christ, and acknowledging that He died for ones sins, and by His death we died to sin, and by His resurrection we've come to new life in Him. Nobody else can do that for anyone.
marienbad wrote: » Your answers are based on belief...
marienbad wrote: » I am not walking yours words anywhere Fanny, I am just not getting an answer - just more examples of human intervention in free will , which really nothing to do with what I am asking.
marienbad wrote: » Now to my statement that ''if there are no consequences there is no free will'' - possibly badly worded but what I am trying to say that if there are no consequences to our choices then the choices are no different that what dessert to have after dinner, if we feel no guilt, or elation or have no fear of being fired after repeated lateness then there is little merit in our choices , but like the homosexuality maybe it is a side track.
marienbad wrote: » That is just not so because all of these interventions are by people and if god were inly just human then yes I would be applying double standards - But God is more than human - he is God. I don't know why I have to keep repeating that.
marienbad wrote: » If you say I am giving an impossible definition of free will , particularly in a Christian context, then fine , lets have your definition
marienbad wrote: » after all I have shown you mine so lets see yours
Fanny Cradock wrote: » Most answers are. But that's the problem, marienbad. Quite a number of us can't figure out why God intervening in a life is any different from anyone or anything else intervening in a life. I wonder if anyone other than yourself has brought this "no consequences" line into the debate? I don't see the relevance. Anyway, it might be of no relevance to me if I drink out of the glass beside me or the other one in the set. Whether I drink out of one or the other the result is the same. Yet it was my free will to choose one over the other. The problem is that you haven't explained why this is relevant. You admit yourself that you have to constantly repeat your point, but that's no good if we don't understand what you are saying. Stating that "it's different because it's God" means as much to me (and possibly the others) as replacing God with "people with red hair", "those with the letter P in their name" or "aliens from Mars". You have to tell us why God is the exception! It's not just in a Christian context. The definition you gave is unworkable. My understanding of free will might lean towards libertarianism. But I can't say for sure that I absolutely reject compatibilism. Either way what I don't accept is that for us to have free will we must be able to do anything at any time. Never on the first date. And I've answered this on a couple of occasions. Anyway, I think I'm out of this debate. We're just going around in circles.
marienbad wrote: » Probably best to leave it so Fanny, if I have to explain that God intervening in a life is just so different than any human agency intervening in a life on the christianity forum , then I just give up.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » You don't have to explain how God is different to us. What you have to do is tell us why this makes any difference to your question. And after all these post you haven't done that - which is odd.
marienbad wrote: » Before we go on - could I ask how you define prayer ?
Interesting that you post this. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of prayer. There have been quite a few times in my life where I've made requests to God, and they haven't been answered. Most of the time in retrospect it is generally because it would be actually better for me if He hadn't answered them. Prayer should be considered primarily an opportunity to seek to be in partnership with God's will, to serve Him and to live for Him, and to tell others about Him. Prayer isn't just a means of making selfish requests. It can also be an opportunity for bringing prayers of thanksgiving to Him. Or even that He would open up His word to us as we read it. How about you actually try to understand Christians and Christianity rather than presenting a strawman of both?
marienbad wrote: » I have done it though Fanny and Zombrex has even thrown in an example .There really is'nt much point giving further examples If we are all the authors of our own destiny based on the concept of free will than any divine intervention in that process would appear to be a contradiction. The fact than humans do it all the time is irrelevant.
What is the response to the question- why does God send people to hell ? That should give you an idea of what I mean.
PDN wrote: » So you keep saying, but when pressed to explain why it should be a contradiction you refuse to do so (a bit of a familiar pattern, I'm sorry to say). We have freedom to make choices. An interventionist God does not, by any logical argument, necessarily involve a removal of free will. 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 see a rabbit trail looming. But here goes anyway. You choose, by sinning, to take a course of action that will result in Hell. God has intervened to try to help you. He sent His Son to die for you. He gave the Bible to tell you about this. But He will not overrule your free will. You can still, by rejecting His offer of salvation, choose to take courses of actions that lead to hell. So, if you go to hell, it is precisely because God's interventionism still left you with free will. He will do everything (including becoming a mangled tortured lump of meat on a cross) to save you from hell - everything, that is, except forcing you into salvation against your will.
marienbad wrote: » The master of of not answering himself responds ,so I will ask you then
Can you pray your self out of hell and if not why not ?
philologos wrote: » As the Bible does. Communication between God and man. It's not necessarily making requests, and it can be to give thanks. It can be just to say, "Father your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" and to make onesself available for that ministry. I think the best prayer is to say Lord Jesus, make your will be active in me, because I don't know what is even best for myself anymore. This is what I've said before on it: It seems like you're just trying to find reasons as to why you shouldn't believe rather than why you should. I hope one day that God will open your heart to consider Him more fully.
PDN wrote: » Please could you refrain from lying about me? If you ask me a straight question I will give you a straight answer. Of course I am not responsible if you don't like, or are incapable of understanding, the answer. No, I don't believe you, or anyone else for that matter, can pray your way out of hell. Why not? Because I believe the biblical revelation is that to finally choose hell is to take an irrevocable step. This is hardly a novel concept - it occurs in a multitude of situations. If you choose to commit suicide, to lose your virginity, or to get a tattoo - then you will find it difficult, if not impossible, to reverse those decisions. It's always easier to squeeze toothpaste out of a tube than it is to force it back in again. Now, I've answered your question with a straight answer. Will you now please do me the courtesy of answering mine - or is this going to be another case of "I'll answer you in my own time and way" (ie never)?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).
marienbad wrote: » I have done it though Fanny
If we are all the authors of our own destiny based on the concept of free will than any divine intervention in that process would appear to be a contradiction.
The fact than humans do it all the time is irrelevant.
ISAW wrote: » where ? In what message? How? Unless you maintain that any intervention = removal of free will? But you cant say humans remove free will through intervention all the time and then say God is totally different based on the assertion that God removes free will through intervention. That IS a contradiction! People may send themselves to hell through their own choice. Put it this way say god creates the law of gravity. If you jump off a cliff is it God sending you to the rocks below or did you chose to jump?
