If We Have Free Will....

reply to post by DantesLost

This is in response to the OP.
No, scripture does not teach that we have free will. Adam and Eve had free will but all their descendants were born into sin and can not do otherwise but be of a sinful human nature.
Christ was born without sin and did have a broader field of choices than we do. Our choices are between believing in him or not. Even that choice has to be given to us by God because our normal nature is to hold to material things and to neglect the spiritual.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Actually, if you look at what Adam and Eve did , which was eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then simply removing these concepts from your perspective allows you to regain a lot of freedom of choice.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Either:
1) the Bible's description of God is wrong.

That's too subjective. My interpretation of how "The Bible" describes "God" is more than likely completely different from yours. Primarily because of my education or lack thereof when it pertains to ancient manuscripts and the literary devices used during those eras.

You can choose to have a different interpretation of the Bible than someone else, however, the Bible clearly states in black and white that there is nothing God can't do and there is nothing God doesn't know.
That requires no assumption, and in fact if there is an assumption made to that it's either going to take away from or add to the original message.
But it doesn't matter either way because I'm only arguing against a specific belief system - in which God IS omnipotent and omniscient.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

2) Human logic is incapable of understanding all the contradictions of an omnipotent and omniscient God (in which case my question would be why would he make us so inferior).

Once again, that depends on your interpretation of God. You need to understand the evolution of the writings about God. Originally, God walks on in, in human form and sits down with Abraham. He thought he was an Angel.

Then later, God comes to Jacob in the middle of the night in human form again and the two wrestle all night. This is why, in the Jewish tradition, it's typical to actually argue with God. That's a far cry from the "we are not worthy" inferiority you are suggesting.

Yes, you can interprete God to be whatever you want, but it doesn't change what I'm arguing against - a specific belief system.
The reason that I included #2 is that it seems to be the only defense that Christians have when asked the hard questions about God. It makes no sense so they revert to the "God is far above us and we can't expect to understand him so logic is irrelevant".

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

3) or God does not exist.

Well, Paul Tillich argued that both existence, and non-existence have their ground inside of God. So by that logic, you can't speak of God in terms of existence or non-existence.

Either God exists or he doesn't lol.
If God does exist than you can imagine whatever you like about him/her/it.
That's not the point.

Anywho, those three options are all there is no matter what you believe.

What you fail to understand is that the Bible doesn't say anything in Black and White.

It is a collection of stories compiled over time as a certain cultures relationship with their beliefs evolved.

It's not a theological compendium, as some might like to see it. And alot of it is completely mis interpreted because most folks today are not familiar with the literary devices used during the many eras of time the writings in The Bible come from.

In fact, the Jewish interpretation of the same scripture is often completely different from the Christian interpretation of the same passage.

No one can say that a book filled with allegories says anything discreetly. Especially when so many different people see so many different meanings in the same text.


You say you are arguing against a specific belief system. I don't know what that belief system is, but it is not the belief system espoused by many Christian Theologians, such as Paul Tillich, Meister Eckhart,Thomas Merton, or Thomas Aquinas.

And these guys don't always agree either.

Interestingly enough, Aquinas' concept of the nature of God doesn't include omniscience or ominpotence.

Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five statements about the divine qualities:

1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.
2. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
3. God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.
4. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.
5. God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."

In this approach, he is following, among others, the Jewish philosopher Maimonides.

Either way, I am not aware of any specific belief system which has supreme authority when discussing the bible. There have always been differences in interpretation of which none are authoritative.



[edit on 1-1-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Again, I'm only arguing against the commonly held belief that God is omnipotent and omniscient. If you're a Christian and you don't believe that then my argument was not meant for you.
I merely stated that if God IS omnipotent and omniscient then free-will is ultimately negated.

You're right that theologians have many varying views of the Bible, but that has to do more with contradictions in the text than anything else - and is really irrelevant to the discussion anyway.

reply to post by TruthParadox


No it does not have to do with contradictions in the text as much as it has to do with the theologians own existential experiences, and how they integrate it into the narrative of their cosmology.

Most Theologians are simply existentialists who are contributing to the ever growing cannon of religious writings.

Once again, there is no uber-authoritative take on the Bible or what it means. What one sees as a contradiction, another sees as perfectly congruent.

The commonly held belief of god is going to die very soon. It will be a very great day for those who can make the transition....

it was going to happen just as it would have on any other planet that would evolve in this universe

double post accident

[edit on 1-1-2009 by Wertdagf]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Either way it's irrelevant to the point I was making.



But there are thousands of contradictions in the Bible.
Contradictions in numbers, genealogy, doctrine, internal errors, and errors which go against KNOWN science.
Most of these errors are not simply in the English translation either but in the earliest texts we have.

I know for a fact that many of the arguments concerning the Bible are solely because of these contradictions (not all, but many).

For example, during the Civil war southerners would quote pro-slavery verses while northerners would quote anti-slavery verses.

Originally posted by TruthParadox


I know for a fact that many of the arguments concerning the Bible are solely because of these contradictions (not all, but many).

For example, during the Civil war southerners would quote pro-slavery verses while northerners would quote anti-slavery verses.

So let me get this straight. Because two different authors in the Bible had two different views of slavery, you call this a contradiction?

The Bible is not SAYING anything. Each book in the bible stands on it's own, independent of the views espoused in each other book. They each are contributions to a continually growing set of literature.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
So let me get this straight. Because two different authors in the Bible had two different views of slavery, you call this a contradiction?

Umm yes lol...
Of course that's a contradiction when you base your faith on the whole Bible.
The point of showing the contradictions is that it is not from God but rather from men.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
So let me get this straight. Because two different authors in the Bible had two different views of slavery, you call this a contradiction?

Umm yes lol...
Of course that's a contradiction when you base your faith on the whole Bible.
The point of showing the contradictions is that it is not from God but rather from men.

Well, from my perspective, if it comes from men, then it does come from God, because God created man.

Unless of course, you ask me what I believe from an impersonal perspective, and in that case, it's still all emanations from creation.

Ultimately it is whatever you think it is. So arguing is futile.