 |
| 
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/24/2005 7:39 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Acolyte said...
Laika,
In conditional necessity the means are necessary to attaining the end but this necessity is not applicable to the antecedent. This is why you are confused in thinking that this is incompatible with LFW. I'm not confused, you just have an inability to show me a "chosen necessity". You show me a choice with a necessary means to reach that end. The choice about the end is made, the means are not chosen. Show me a true "chosen necessity" that stands alone, if you can. Choices are optional, necessity is not optional, you're trying to justify an oxymoron and are inable.
Furthermore, my dead dog illustration is very apt, as is the Henry Ford example. People do NOT attribute virtue to dead dogs who obediently stay put and people do NOT consider "black only" as an option or a choice. Your "chosen necessity" is just as ridiculous as people find those analogous examples.
Furthermore, God does kill people and does refrain from killing people, apt proof that God has the actual ability yet chooses when He applies it through moral restraint, which is His LFW. Moral restraint is a choice.
Your idea of infallibilty is inane and meaningless. No one thinks a tuna fish is virtuous for not smoking, it's only beings that CAN smoke and yet don't that people consider virtuous and wise.
You're applying properties to beings that they are incapable of exercising. To exemplify a being for something they are incapable of doing is meaningless.
"stay boy, stay....... good dog"
 Post Edited (Laika) : 6/24/2005 7:54:58 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/24/2005 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Acolyte
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2005
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 6/24/2005 8:28 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Laika,
Inability or not, others have seemed to have grasped the concept. In any case, let me try once more to bring out the problem in your construal of conditional necessity. I never argued for a “chosen necessity." What I argued was that not all types of necessity are incompatible with LFW. Moreover, you confuse choice with free choice. A determined volition is still a genuine volition. This is a point admitted by all sides-libertarians, hard determinists, soft determinists, semi-compatibilists, compatibilists and source incompatibilists.
I already did show you a choice which includes a necessary means to an end. The option is conditional or hypothetical while what making the choice entails has a necessary component to it.
As I showed, neither of your examples are apt because they all turn on the idea of a set with one and only one option. The example I gave was with a set that had a plurality of options. Hence your comments amount to a strawman fallacy.
I dare say that some of the greatest minds in history agree with my claim regarding conditional necessity. I can’t think of anyone in the history of thought who would dissent. I find it highly improbable that people like Ibn Sina, Aquinas, Aristotle, Scotus, Bertrand Russell, Kant, Hume, et al are wrong and you are right.
If God restrains himself from doing evil, then this is of no help at all in showing that God will always be good. It is fairly obvious that someone can simply ask, how do we know that God will always restrain himself from evil? You have not addressed the problem, you have simply moved it. 
My distinction between infallibility and inerrancy is quite coherent. Calling it names doesn’t amount to an argument. You need to give an argument rather than denigrate your opponents views.  It is quite obvious that there is a modal distinction between inerrancy and infallibility-the former there is no error but it is impossible while on the latter there is no error and it is not even possible for there to be error. If you have trouble with that then you have trouble with the basic concepts of possibility and impossibility, in which case some modal logic might help you to get clear on these concepts.
Your tuna fish is another false analogy for tuna fish don’t have a capacity for choice while impeccable agents do. I am not arguing for the mere inability of choice per se but for the inability to choose a specific set of options, namely immoral once. Tuna fish don’t choose between any options at all and so your example is a false analogy. 
I am not arguing that God is faithful to a degree. Actually I think that that is your position. You thin God is faithful in so far as he continues to do good. My view is that God is fully faithful across all logically possible circumstances, which is just to say the same thing as that it is impossible for God to be unfaithful. Hence someone who is faithful to their spouse with the possibility of failure still instantiates the property of faithfulness but not completely. If they did, the property would persist under any and all conditions. You are right, I am flailing, but not in the sense of tossing and turning. I was thinking more in the sense of beating an object with a weapon. 
If you wish to descend to the level of caricature and insult I am afraid I cannot follow you there. If you wish to have a rational discussion of the issues I am more than willing to accommodate you. But caricature and insult are signs of an inability to engage the arguments of one’s opponents and displays a lack of intellectual experience and virtue. Usually people who have had significant experience in intellectual matters stick to arguments.
In any case, you might find it beneficial to read some of the current philosophical literature on Free Will to come up to speed on the concepts.
John Martin Fischer’s, The Metaphysics of Free Will, Oxford (Argues for Compatibilism)
Robert Kane, The Significance of Free Will, Oxford (Argues for Libertarianism)
Robert Kane, ed., The Oxford Handbook on Free Will, Oxford (Collection of articles on determinism, soft determinism, compatibilism, semi-compatibilism, soft incompatibilism, hard incompatibilism, source incompatibilism, teleological libertarianism and agent causation.
God never ceases from good works because he never began them. www.energeticprocession.com
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Acolyte
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2005
Total Posts : 42
| Posted 6/24/2005 8:31 PM (GMT -6) | | | Correction.
I wrote,
"It is quite obvious that there is a modal distinction between inerrancy and infallibility-the former there is no error but it is impossible while on the latter there is no error and it is not even possible for there to be error."
It should read,
"It is quite obvious that there is a modal distinction between inerrancy and infallibility-the former there is no error but it is POSSIBLE while on the latter there is no error and it is not even possible for there to be error."
God never ceases from good works because he never began them. www.energeticprocession.com
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/24/2005 11:02 PM (GMT -6) | |
Acolyte said...
The example I gave was with a set that had a plurality of options. Hence your comments amount to a strawman fallacy. And I showed you several options from within that "good" set that can be "bad" due to circumstances.
It's evident God can take away human life, for example. He has demonstrated that ability. It's His moral restraint, His choice to do it in the proper context that preserves His property of "good" NOT His inability to take human life.
Acolyte:
If God restrains himself from doing evil, then this is of no help at all in showing that God will always be good. It is fairly obvious that someone can simply ask, how do we know that God will always restrain himself from evil?
Laika:
It's called "trust" and "faith". Having faith that a dead dog will remain still is innocuous, not commendable.
Acolyte:
Your tuna fish is another false analogy for tuna fish don’t have a capacity for choice while impeccable agents do. I am not arguing for the mere inability of choice per se but for the inability to choose a specific set of options, namely immoral once.
Laika:
When you're arguing about God's "goodness", the choices are "good" or "bad", not "good" or "good". A "good" choice in an inappropriate context can be "bad".
That's why your "good" set is broke.
We don't ascribe virtue to a tuna fish when it eschews smoking due to it's inability to smoke, we shouldn't ascribe virtue to God when He's good if He has the inability to not do good.
That's why showing how silly it is to reward a dead dog for staying still aptly illustrates you rewarding God for being "good" due to an inability to be anything other. It's innocuous and meaningless.
Thanks for the book recommendations.
Post Edited (Laika) : 6/24/2005 11:39:03 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/25/2005 7:43 AM (GMT -6) | | If it is considered true in eternity future that God will never commit evil, than it is determined today that God cannot commit evil in the future, because it is already known that He will not; He does not have the freedom, in this context, to commit evil. If, on the other hand, it is not known if God will or will not commit evil in the future, then all the faith and trust in the world hinges on just that: faith and trust. There is NO guarantee that God will not commit evil, and this is not what scripture teaches.
So, in the same way that Open Theism concludes determinism in the view that God has exhaustive simple knowledge of future events—hence, there is no freedom for the participants to change events yet to come, as God already knows what will happen and it is thus settled—this same deterministic conclusion must apply to God with regard to HIS future. Either it is determined that God will never sin or it is NOT determined that He will never sin. The Christian perspective from scripture is that He will never sin, hence He cannot sin. It is not enough to say that God will not sin in the future because He chooses each day not to do so. We would be left, were this the case, with a God who could, at any moment, go bad on us, regardless of whether the chances were 99.9% that He will not. Again, this is exactly what scripture drives home about God, that He is not man that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent (from having done evil).
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/25/2005 8:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Laika said...
We don't ascribe virtue to a tuna fish when it eschews smoking due to it's inability to smoke, we shouldn't ascribe virtue to God when He's good if He has the inability to not do good.
Sure we can! Because good is a positive quality, it does not require a choice of some bad alternative. Giving to others with their best interest in mind is good, in and of itself, and I believe that God's will allows infinitely many good choices.
Laika said...
That's why showing how silly it is to reward a dead dog for staying still aptly illustrates you rewarding God for being "good" due to an inability to be anything other. It's innocuous and meaningless.
Then is the probability that God will do wrong, not zero? If it is not zero, then just tell me what this probability is, every year, then I can tell on average, how long it will be before God will actually do wrong.
If it is zero, then it is impossible for God to do wrong. Just some basic mathematicals...
Starkman said...
Again, this is exactly what scripture drives home about God, that He is not man that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent (from having done evil).
Yes, I agree...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/26/2005 10:10 PM (GMT -6) | |
Lee said...
Then is the probability that God will do wrong, not zero? If it is not zero, then just tell me what this probability is, every year, then I can tell on average, how long it will be before God will actually do wrong.
If it is zero, then it is impossible for God to do wrong. Just some basic mathematicals...
I don't know what other people would say, but honestly how can we know the answers to these questions? I assume you think the probability is zero. Why? Because God said so? Do we just accept anything that is said as true? Oh, but it's God who said it, and he has proven true in the past. But what does the past have to say about the future? Will the future necessarily be like the past? Says who? If we are taking God at his word because we can take God at his word because we can take God at his word because we can take God at his word.... , we might as well admit that we are not using logic, but emotion or faith. That's fine. Logic cannot provide the foundation needed to support itself. Emotion's as good a foundation as any.
All this to say, anyone who claims to know the probability of a future event is basing this knowledge on an arational hope, and that's ok. We can admit it. The mathematics are good. The assumption that they are appropriate in this application is very questionable. Determinsm, like openness, is not provable in this way.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/27/2005 8:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
Sahid said...
... but honestly how can we know the answers to these questions? I assume you think the probability is zero. Why? Because God said so?
Because the alternative is that he will eventually really do wrong!
Sahid said...
Do we just accept anything that is said as true? Oh, but it's God who said it, and he has proven true in the past. But what does the past have to say about the future?
Do be careful here, though...
Psalm 78:19-20 They spoke against God, saying, "Can God spread a table in the desert? When he struck the rock, water gushed out, and streams flowed abundantly. But can he also give us food? Can he supply meat for his people?"
And then we may read what happened next, and why...
Sahid said...
If we are taking God at his word because we can take God at his word because we can take God at his word because we can take God at his word.... , we might as well admit that we are not using logic, but emotion or faith. That's fine. Logic cannot provide the foundation needed to support itself.
There might be objective reasons for taking someone as trustworthy, though? Surely you don't take a plane just because someone told you it could fly...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/27/2005 10:56 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Lee said...
Then is the probability that God will do wrong, not zero? If it is not zero, then just tell me what this probability is, every year, then I can tell on average, how long it will be before God will actually do wrong.
If it is zero, then it is impossible for God to do wrong. Just some basic mathematicals...
Laika:
If 33% of women are red headed and I have a 33% chance of marrying a red head, that doesn't mean it was impossible for me not to marry a red head.
If Baker's Dozen has a 1 in 12 chance of winning the Kentucky Derby as a three year and loses the Kentucky Derby as a three year old, it doesn't mean it was impossible for Baker's Dozen to win the Kentuckey Derby.
If 50% of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce and my parents NEVER divorce, it isn't because it's impossible for them to divorce, it just means they exercised moral restraint in not getting divorced.
That's what Moses appealed to when God chose to destroy Israel:
Exodus 29:
10"Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them (a choice from the "good" set  ); and I will make of you a great nation."
11Then Moses entreated the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does Your anger burn against Your people whom You have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
12"Why should the Egyptians speak, saying, 'With evil intent He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth'? Turn from Your burning anger and change Your mind about doing harm to Your people.
13"Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants to whom You swore by Yourself, and said to them, 'I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, and all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'"
14So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.
Moses appealed to God's ability to restrain Himself from doing this...... harm.
"STAY BOY, STAY........ GOOD dog"
Post Edited (Laika) : 6/28/2005 6:35:58 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/28/2005 1:29 AM (GMT -6) | |
We said...
Sahid said...
... but honestly how can we know the answers to these questions? I assume you think the probability is zero. Why? Because God said so? Because the alternative is that he will eventually really do wrong! This is circular reasoning? There is no chance that God will do evil because God won't do evil because he said so and he wouldn't lie because there is no chance that God will do evil because God won't do evil because he said so and he wouldn't lie because there is no chance that God will do evil because God won't do evil because he said so and he wouldn't lie because there is no chance....
And besides, as Laika said, probability is not actuality.
Lee said...
Do be careful here, though...
Psalm 78:19-20 They spoke against God, saying, "Can God spread a table in the desert? When he struck the rock, water gushed out, and streams flowed abundantly. But can he also give us food? Can he supply meat for his people?"
And then we may read what happened next, and why... I never said that God will sin. You are the one that equates probability with actuality. It's a variation of the gambler's fallacy. Jesus himself said that he could call down angels to save him from death (and yes, disobeying and distrusting his father to bring him through would have been sin).
Lee said...
There might be objective reasons for taking someone as trustworthy, though? Surely you don't take a plane just because someone told you it could fly... No, I don't believe so. Just subjective ones. "Test me and see" was never meant to be taken in the modern, objective, nonbiased observer sense. A rational arguement needs a non-rational starting place assumption.
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 6/28/2005 1:32:29 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/29/2005 10:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Various folks said...
Lee: ... then just tell me what this probability is, every year, then I can tell on average, how long it will be before God will actually do wrong.
Laika: If 33% of women are red headed and I have a 33% chance of marrying a red head, that doesn't mean it was impossible for me not to marry a red head.
Yes, that's one chance. Now if you have an infinite number of chances, and there is a 33% chance of marrying a red head every 100 years, then on average, you will indeed marry a red head every 300 years.
Laika said...
"So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people." Moses appealed to God's ability to restrain Himself from doing this...... harm.
But we have the same word here:
Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things.
"Calamity" is the same word you are reading as "harm," here. So then, by this interpretation, God really does harm, and says so:
Amos 3:6 If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?
But God does not do evil, we all agree on that, so a different meaning here must be intended:
Exodus 32:14 And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people.
Various folks said...
Lee: Because the alternative is that he will eventually really do wrong!
Sahid: This is circular reasoning? There is no chance that God will do evil because God won't do evil...
No, actually, this is just a math formula, and is not a circular argument, if the probability of X is P for an interval of time T, then the average time until X will occur (and recur!) is T / P.
Sahid said...
And besides, as Laika said, probability is not actuality.
Unless you keep on sampling! An endless series of samples, for an event with non-zero probability, guarantees the event.
Sahid said...
It's a variation of the gambler's fallacy. Jesus himself said that he could call down angels to save him...
Yes, but the question of whether the past can give us reason to believe God will be trustworthy in the future is specifically addressed in this Psalm. The gambler's fallacy is about independent events, and if (since!) we can trust God's past actions to give us assurance about how he will act in the future, God's actions are not independent in that sense.
Various folks said...
Lee: There might be objective reasons for taking someone as trustworthy, though? Surely you don't take a plane just because someone told you it could fly...
Sahid: No, I don't believe so. Just subjective ones.
Not objective proof, though! Objective reasons, providing real reasons for faith, which is not just a conviction, but is also (as in the verse quoted), evidence, the faith itself is real, objective evidence.
John said...
Funny how some view the fact that God possesses libertarian free will (ability to choose between good and evil) as if that means sinning would therefore be an inevitability for Him.
Well, I need to be shown how libertarian free will can exist when the real probability of the alternative choice, is zero, from any frame of reference, with regard to time.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 6/29/2005 10:08:29 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/30/2005 4:13 AM (GMT -6) | |
Lee said...
Yes, that's one chance. Now if you have an infinite number of chances, and there is a 33% chance of marrying a red head every 100 years, then on average, you will indeed marry a red head every 300 years.
Not if I have a choice.
Lee said...
No, actually, this is just a math formula, and is not a circular argument, if the probability of X is P for an interval of time T, then the average time until X will occur (and recur!) is T / P.
But you base your value of X on P. I'm not saying that step is not logical or mathematical. I'm saying the assumption you use to find your values is not.
Lee said...
Unless you keep on sampling! An endless series of samples, for an event with non-zero probability, guarantees the event. But you are assuming the lack of the ability to choose. The very use of probability language assumes your favored outcome.
Lee said...
Yes, but the question of whether the past can give us reason to believe God will be trustworthy in the future is specifically addressed in this Psalm. The gambler's fallacy is about independent events, and if (since!) we can trust God's past actions to give us assurance about how he will act in the future, God's actions are not independent in that sense. So, if the past determines the future, then the past determines the future. Yeah. This is a classic example of a circular argument. Put it into formal logic and try to support your claims without refering to what you're trying to prove. It boils down to A~>B~>C~>A.
Lee said...
Not objective proof, though! Objective reasons, providing real reasons for faith, which is not just a conviction, but is also (as in the verse quoted), evidence, the faith itself is real, objective evidence.
The verse you quoted says nothing about objective proving the impossibility of God choosing evil. It talks about the possibility of him doing good.
Lee said...
Well, I need to be shown how libertarian free will can exist when the real probability of the alternative choice, is zero, from any frame of reference, with regard to time. But to put it in terms of probability rules out free will. If the odds determine the future, then free will does not. You are assuming the conclusion.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 6/30/2005 8:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sahid,
Various folks said...
Lee: Now if you have an infinite number of chances, and there is a 33% chance of marrying a red head every 100 years, then on average, you will indeed marry a red head every 300 years.
Sahid: Not if I have a choice.
But the probability puts bounds on the choice, if it does not turn out at this rate, with an endless number of samples, then the probability is wrong.
Sahid said...
But you base your value of X on P.
Yes, I do, if P is correct, then I can make this calculation, and I am only assuming a non-zero probability here! And the probability must be either zero, or non-zero, and in either case, I can reach my conclusion, so I need not assume even a zero or a non-zero probability, and thus I actually am not making any assumption!
Sahid said...
But you are assuming the lack of the ability to choose. The very use of probability language assumes your favored outcome.
No, choose away! Yet there must be some probability, either zero, or non-zero.
Sahid said...
If the odds determine the future, then free will does not. You are assuming the conclusion.
The odds limit the future, they don't determine it, though, just as saying I will probably have pizza, doesn't mean I have to pick pizza (Though I wouldn't mind! Being terminally fond of pizza).
Various folks said...
Lee: The gambler's fallacy is about independent events, and if (since!) we can trust God's past actions to give us assurance about how he will act in the future, God's actions are not independent in that sense.
Sahid: So, if the past determines the future, then the past determines the future. Yeah. This is a classic example of a circular argument.
In terms of character! Not in terms of actions. But how else can you come to trust someone, if not by past experience, your's and other's? This is induction, deduction (which you seem to be requiring) is not available in relationships.
I cannot find the C.S. Lewis quote I'm looking for! It went something like this, "Glimlet believed in Ophelia's devotion, but only when it was too late." When all is perfectly clear, is not the context for relationships.
Various folks said...
Lee: Not objective proof, though! Objective reasons.
Sahid: The verse you quoted says nothing about objective proving the impossibility of God choosing evil.
But I meant not perfect proof, but objective reasons, induction again, not deduction, but nevertheless induction from real, solid facts, and valid inductions, reasonable ones, inductions we should make.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/6/2005 6:53 AM (GMT -6) | |
I have a good dog. Her name is Lassie. Lassie has a lot of freedom to do what she pleases around our house. I never have to worry about her harming any one of my six children because she is a good dog. Lassie is very much alive.
My God is good. His Son's name is Jesus. The Father and the Son do exactly what pleases them in the realms of heaven and earth. I never have to worry about them harming my wife and I, or any of our six children; because God the Father and God the Son are good. Jesus and His Father in heaven are very much alive.
If a stranger were to wander into my yard and threaten my children, they would not think that my dog was good. I would think so however, because she would defend those she loves with all means available to her.(her teeth, her barking, her paws etc.) She even gets upset when the children are play fighting. She is a good dog and I praise her for this.
God does not seem good to the wicked. The wicked just don't know God. God, because He is impeccably good, must be the enemy of all that is not good. God is to be praised for this excellent goodness that is His alone.
LFW is never fully true of the human condition for reasons which I have posted on other threads. It is a well-meaning concept underlining the truth of the non-deterministic nature of individual human destiny, but it fails in every other respect upon close analysis.
It fails because,
1) Humans have at the end of the day, limited options available to them given the overriding servitude which they are bound under, either to God or Satan.
2) The concept inherently assumes a freedom to choose between good and evil, which renders the concept useless when applying it to God or to Satan. God can only do good. Satan can only do evil. The only real choice we have is in the choice of our M(m)aster.
God is impeccably and consistently good. (more like my consistently benevolent "sheltie" )
Satan is invariably evil. (more like certain pit bulls around this city )
My sheltie is much happier than certain pit bulls around Fredericton. I prefer my sheltie to those other dogs. She has genuine affection for me and my whole family. A heaven where God, people and even animals were of a similar disposition, would not be the meaningless place of forced "robotic" love that some "OV's" would make it out to be.
Accolyte's argument stands for the most part. This issue gains no clarity (imho) from the use of meaningless terms like "LFW".
Simple is better.
Simple is clearer.
Simple can be understood.
Regards from a "simple" brother
Paul M. Blackmore 
P.S. The future is easily arranged with a high degree of predictable precision, because men are bound with such a terrific degree of servitude to their respective M(m)asters in this world. The M(m)asters are completely and consistently true to their nature(s), that calling the future becomes more a matter of just what elements of "Evil" will be allowed to come to fruition in the tapestry of human history, and when.
God has full control of that process. God in His grace, has held back the very worst until the end. God's truthfullness demands that all be proven, all be displayed over the course of history, and all be rendered to their respective eternal abodes when all is said and done.
Genesis 1:4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Ecclesiastes 3
1To every thing there is a season, and a time to under the heaven:
2A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep every purposesilence, and a time to speak;
8A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
9What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?
10I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
11He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 7/6/2005 7:29 AM (GMT -6) | |
Paul M. Blackmore said...
I have a good dog. Her name is Lassie. Lassie has a lot of freedom to do what she pleases around our house. I never have to worry about her harming any one of my six children because she is a good dog. Lassie is very much alive.
Lassie has instinctually bonded to you, it's (hopefully) not the same as your wife making the choice to live with you. Lassie would have instinctually bonded with ANYONE that took her in as a pup. I doubt your wife would say she would make the same choice with just ANYONE. See the difference? One is an animal bonding instinct, the other is "LFW".
Paul M. Blackmore said...
If a stranger were to wander into my yard and threaten my children, they would not think that my dog was good. I would think so however, because she would defend those she loves with all means available to her.(her teeth, her barking, her paws etc.) She even gets upset when the children are play fighting. She is a good dog and I praise her for this.
God does not seem good to the wicked. The wicked just don't know God. God, because He is impeccably good, must be the enemy of all that is not good. God is to be praised for this excellent goodness that is His alone.
This is why Acolyte's lame "good" set example is broken. "Good" is meaningless as a standalone property. Actions/choices can be labelled "good" or "bad" depending on the outcome they bring to other beings. Saying God is "good" sans any demonstratable actions that exhibit benevolence to others is meaningless.
If I'm building a castle and God provides stone, He's good. If I'm asking for a loaf of bread and He provides stone, He's not good. Luke 11
Paul M. Blackmore said...
God is impeccably and consistently good. (more like my consistently benevolent "sheltie" )
You may want to consider examples of human relationships, such as marriages, instead of instinctual animal bonding. scripture gives plenty of analogies of marriage to describe our relationship to Christ. None of pet 'relationships'.
Remember, we're the bride of Christ, not the pets of Christ.
Post Edited (Laika) : 7/6/2005 1:57:39 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/6/2005 6:31 PM (GMT -6) | | If libertarian free will is such a fault-ridden concept, why is it one of the most doggedly determined (wink) topics of debate among philosophers, theologians, and just about everybody else you can think of?
Also, libertarian free will does NOT mean we are free to do whatever we wish, or that we can "be whatever we want," any more than it means we are free to jump (unassisted) to the moon or to swallow a large watermelon in one enormous bite.
Libertarian free will simply and only means that we have the power of contrary MORAL choice. LFW, accurately considered, has NEVER meant the same thing as UNLIMITED free will. We all admit we have quite a few limitations in life, even with respect to what KINDS of moral choices we will find ourselves in. LFW realizes that and does not deny it at all. What LFW teaches is that when we are free to choose MORALLY, we have the power of contrary choice, the ability to choose between good and evil, in every MORAL decision we face.
Gen. 4:6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://www.revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/6/2005 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Dear Laika:
You are confused. I simply used the "pet" example to show what a nature singularly disposed to good or malvolence, might look like. I was not trying to put God, man or the devil in the place of an animal.
My post was clear enough, and remains so. I'm sorry that my point was lost on you. You seemed to have difficulty grasping the much more nuanced argument presented by Accolyte as well. I'm happy to let it rest.
Your vision of a God exercising "moral restraint" lest He burst out on some wild orgy of lawless, wanton behaviour; bears little resemblance to the God which the Bible presents.
You cannot back up this absurd notion of God's alleged " moral restraint" with anything printed in the Bible. Demonstrate otherwise if you can. I'm all ears. ( and brows)
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Post Edited (Paul M. Blackmore) : 7/6/2005 7:49:45 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/6/2005 7:08 PM (GMT -6) | |
John said...Gen. 4:6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
That "sin" did indeed overpower Cain. Cain then murdered his own brother, under the influence of that power. At the moment of the murder, Cain had not the LFW options that were his earlier.
That is my point exactly. The moments where men are truly free to choose their spiritual M(m)asters few and far between. Everyday human behaviour is largely a function of the G(g)od we have chosen to serve.
We share the guilt of the god of this world if we elect to serve him. We share in the righteousness of the true God in heaven if we choose to serve Him. We are slaves of one or the other. We are not inherently free.
Romans 6: 16"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 7/7/2005 2:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul M. Blackmore said:
That "sin" did indeed overpower Cain.
John replies: But it didn't have to; Cain could have chosen not to act out on his hatred and envy towards Abel, or else God didn't tell Cain the truth in 4:6.
Paul said: At the moment of the murder, Cain had not the LFW options that were his earlier.
John replies: If you mean Cain could not have chosen otherwise than to kill Abel, I (and apparently Gen. 4:6) would have to disagree with you on that point.
about the slavemaster we choose, I basically agree, though I would hasten to add that in all cases we are VOLUNTARILY serving from the heart whomever we have chosen, whether our slavemaster be Christ or sin.
Romans 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to *anyone* as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted, 18and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19I am speaking in human terms because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. 20When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21So what advantage did you then get from the things of which you now are ashamed? The end of those things is death. 22But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life.
Blessings,
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/7/2005 4:16 AM (GMT -6) | |
Paul M. Blackmore said...
Your vision of a God exercising "moral restraint" lest He burst out on some wild orgy of lawless, wanton behaviour; bears little resemblance to the God which the Bible presents. In the Bible, God is likened to a wild animal, abusive husband (by modern standards), warrior, fire, and a storm. I recognize that this is not exactly your point. But "wild" behavior is not below God.
More to the point, what was Jesus doing in the garden? Acting? If the blood-sweating, prayers of Jesus in the garden are not the perfect example of "moral restraint," then I must not understand the term. Rebelling against the Father would be evil. It wasn't a choice between good and better.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 7/7/2005 5:45 AM (GMT -6) | |
John said...John replies: If you mean Cain could not have chosen otherwise than to kill Abel, I (and apparently Gen. 4:6) would have to disagree with you on that point.
That is not what I said. I do not absolve Cain in any manner whatsoever.
The warning to Cain was not, "Don't you go and murder your brother", because if men had full LFW options at all times one might imagine a directive that made no mention of a "third party" (a demon no doubt) about to overpower him.
That was my point. Because it is normative in the human experience to have people characterized by "lust", "greed", "bitterness", "pride" etc., I argue that the concept of LFW is not what so many make it out to be.
Many a drunk would love to have the personal LFW to break free of his addiction. Many a hateful man or woman would want to have the personal LFW to be able to love those that matter to them most, but can't.
In the main I am with you John, and I understand where you're coming from. My point needs to be raised however in the discussion of "how God sees the future so clearly", and certainly in the context of the current discussion regarding "God having LFW or not". I wished to show that the ability to choose good or evil is an entirely human dilemma, (not God's).
Also I wanted to point out that even though we do have this ability to choose, it becomes less and less so with the passage of time, and with the increasing servitude imposed upon the human condition by the G(g)od we have chosen to serve.
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
| 69 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:39 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|