The Evangelist Conspiracy against Self Determination

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I have heard of the paradox you speak of. I simply do not subscribe to it.

That particular conversation would probably best be handled in person rather than through text.

If man had free will, and if God had therefore agreed to not interfere in that free will, then how could God know whether man would sin or not? The only way He could have known was to break His own word and peek into man's will, thus negating the free will of man. Had He done this, man would have simply been another servant. I believe God did not want man to be a servant, but a companion.

Not interfering is not the same thing as not knowing. I'd like to believe God is good, because if God was bad then I certainly wouldn't love to believe. In order for me to believe this from a logical point of view, I must assume that God doesn't care what choices you make, and that his love and company is not conditional.

I also believe that God loves His creations regardless of their sin. However, the Bible clearly says that God hates sin itself. Therefore God is great enough to separate the sin from the sinner, giving rise to the line "Hate the sin, love the sinner".

If god is Omniscient, even if he forgets what he knows, he still knew it at a point in time before the creation of man. If he willfully forgets or purposely decides not to know the outcome of every soul, that is a choice made in full knowledge of all outcomes prior to the decision. As such, he would know that souls that are made will go to hell beforehand... or he WILL HAVE known at some point in God's past.

To deny that God even cares whether we sin or not, is to directly deny the book that tells us of God's very existence. No offense, but this sounds like the 'a'la carte' style of religion, wherein one takes what they want to be true and denies anything they do not want to be true. If you are comfortable with that approach, more power to you. I am not. I believe that truth is truth, regardless of whether one believes it or not, and it does not make sense to me to accept part of a whole as the whole with no more reason than 'I think that's how it should be'. It's a little like me saying I believe in Calculus but not Algebra. It doesn't change mathematics, it simply blinds me to the full potential of mathematics.

Perhaps. I could not tolerate a God which knowingly condemned souls to death, and if this god is Omniscient (At any point in time), he would know and I wouldn't worship him. For me, it is a requirement that God love sin... it is in fact a part of God's plan in all apparentness.

The alternative calls into question God's benevolence, and also my worship.

In the context of this thread, that is an apt statement. Many evangelicals do indeed use a carrot/stick approach. I do not listen to those, and I suggest anyone who does listen to what sounds like such an approach be wary.

If we are talking about the Biblical context we seem to have gotten into, then I see things differently. The Hebrew language is worded differently than the English we are accustomed to. A minor amount of research into the language will show that nowhere did God curse anyone with punishment; He warned them about the consequences of their own actions. A very different thing, IMO.

TheRedneck

In which case, if God does not Punish (Which is certainly fine in my book), but instead warns people, "Look, if you do these things in your life, you won't feel so great... and your life won't be as cool as it could be," I'm good with that too. That jives well with the concept of a Benevolent God who is Omniscient; perhaps he just wants you to have a good life without pain or suffering.

But the sending sinners to hell thing has always smacked of a vengeful, mean, selfish God who has no interest in genuine love. Especially when we examine the properties of God in a logical manner.

And I recently came across yet another example of Evangelism conspiring against self Determinism.

G) Do what God wants you to. This particular one is actually quite blatant, it even in a way says outright that Evangelists are against self-determinism. At various points in the many years this discussion has taken place, many believers have made various arguments attesting to item G. in our rogue's gallery.

The argument goes in various different ways... some use blatant fear (e.g.;If you're wrong and I'm right, you'll have damned your eternal soul) others merely make the argument that a true Christian follows the will of God.

This is an apparent kick in the face of self-determinism. Evangelist EXtians make this argument in myriad forms, all of which say one thing; Following the will of God is better than following your own will. God, as the loving parent, knows better than any qualified adult. Self-Determination is obliquely stated as something that must be sacrificed in order to be in the company of God.

And generally where it follows is any of the aforementioned items which displease your particular denomination of EXTianity that you happen to be encountering. Nearly all of them will elicit the argument from item G.

What is not stated as bald-faced is what is actually being asked of the recipient; become a puppet of the church.

How else is the argument to be taken? A person's free will is not good enough, obeying the will of god is preferable to be considered a good person. If you do not obey gods will, you are either lost or evil.

EXtianity demands obedience and subservience of the parishioners. Sublimating the Will of each individual is overtly commanded by doctrine and widely preached by clergy and layman alike.

No other item I have as yet mentioned is so apparent in it's abuse of a person's own will to determine their own decisions.