 |
| 
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/15/2004 7:17 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by the Wicker Man
Yes, put another way, their contention is that the ONLY way for God to bring good out of an evil situation is if God caused/planned the evil Himself in the first place.
It’s more confusing then a seeing eye dog (Shepard) mixed with a guard dog (Doberman) that keeps biting blind people. It's satan on a leash: Bite me, no lick me, bite me, lick me, bite me, lick me, bite me, lick me, bite me, lick me, bite me, lick me….. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/15/2004 8:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
This misses the sense in which LFW is developed over life (little children with LFW can’t lead pogroms) and it ignores the possible good and love that are only gotten to through LFW. If LFW doesn’t work, then I’d love to hear your explanation of love, namely, is love possible for us apart from LFW? I don’t think so. So dismiss LFW if you want, but offer something in its place.
Tom-
This all depends on how far you take LFW. No one can say love is based on causes from within ourselves. When I first met my wife, I did not fall in love with her because of internal causes. My wife is the direct cause of my love for her. This also works in opposition. Those people whom we hate, do things which are the direct causes for our feelings towards them.
Now look at the list of causes. The very things that attract us to others are the fruit of the spirit; i.e. love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control, etc. The very things that repel us from others are the fruit of the flesh; i.e. adultry, prostitution, uncleanness, wantonness, enmities, strife, jealousies, furies, factions, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, etc.
God created our nature and conscience with a knowledge of His law and the fruit of the spirit, but our constant struggle with the flesh is what hinders our relationships, not only with each other, but also with God. When the flesh is done away with, our nature and conscience can function unhindered and the fruit of the spirit will be attractive to all.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/15/2004 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock: This all depends on how far you take LFW. No one can say love is based on causes from within ourselves. When I first met my wife, I did not fall in love with her because of internal causes. My wife is the direct cause of my love for her. This also works in opposition. Those people whom we hate, do things which are the direct causes for our feelings towards them.
Tom: The question is not whether or not your wife is a necessary cause of your love for her. She certainly is at least that much. The question is, are you at all a cause (among others) in determining whether or not you love and pursue her? What part do you play in your love of others? If your wife is a sufficient cause, then you’re out of the loop of causation and your love for her is just an effect of her influence upon you. If this is the case, then I claim what we feel for others and call love cannot be true love. You figure into the causal equation as well. In fact, in morally significant choices, you figure in sufficiently.
Likewise with hate. We’re morally responsible (oh, I forgot, you don’t believe we’re morally responsible, right?) for our hating other people precisely because not hating is an option we don’t take though we could. Crummy people aren’t sufficient causes of the hate we develop for them. They’re necessary causes, yes. We can’t hate “them” without “them.” But they’re not sufficient causes. We are able not to hate “them” in spite of them.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/15/2004 12:55 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Lock: This all depends on how far you take LFW. No one can say love is based on causes from within ourselves. When I first met my wife, I did not fall in love with her because of internal causes. My wife is the direct cause of my love for her. This also works in opposition. Those people whom we hate, do things which are the direct causes for our feelings towards them.
Tom: The question is not whether or not your wife is a necessary cause of your love for her. She certainly is at least that much.
I always find myself scratching my head when I hear people say such things as, "You made me mad!" It is simply incorrect to say that someone else can MAKE/CAUSE/FORCE you to love OR hate them. In Psychology 101 we learned that our personalities and social relationships are multifactorial. Maybe lock didn't take that course, but I thought gym teachers had to take Intro to Pscyh.
About LFW, I'm currently studying the 19th-century Methodist theologian Miley's Systematic Theology, specifically, his chapters on free agency. He makes some interesting points, such as:
1. Free agency is NOT freedom of the will. (He argues that the will is simply the faculty used by the mind to accomplish the mind's purpose, while MIND is what makes someone a free moral agent).
2. Interestingly, Miley argues that precisely what compatibilists miss in their argument that the strongest motive determines the choice is the capacity of moral agents to REASON.
3. And, he argues that suspension of choice while weighing the alternatives is not a choice but is a function of MIND (reasoning), by which a decision is eventually made.
Hmmm...
1 Kings 18:21 Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people did not answer him a word. NASB
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/15/2004 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: The question is not whether or not your wife is a necessary cause of your love for her. She certainly is at least that much. The question is, are you at all a cause (among others) in determining whether or not you love and pursue her? What part do you play in your love of others?
Tom-
You pose the question, but give no answer. Tell me what part we play in the cause?
quote:
If your wife is a sufficient cause, then you’re out of the loop of causation and your love for her is just an effect of her influence upon you. If this is the case, then I claim what we feel for others and call love cannot be true love. You figure into the causal equation as well. In fact, in morally significant choices, you figure in sufficiently.
Again, you make the claim, but do not explain how it is not true love. What part do we have in the cause? How do we figure into the causal equation?
quote:
I always find myself scratching my head when I hear people say such things as, "You made me mad!" It is simply incorrect to say that someone else can MAKE/CAUSE/FORCE you to love OR hate them. In Psychology 101 we learned that our personalities and social relationships are multifactorial.
John-
You have joined Tom by making claims without sufficient explaination. Explain how we can love or hate a person without ever meeting or knowing anything about them.
quote:
1. Free agency is NOT freedom of the will. (He argues that the will is simply the faculty used by the mind to accomplish the mind's purpose, while MIND is what makes someone a free moral agent).
This is exactly what Romans 7 teaches.
quote:
2. Interestingly, Miley argues that precisely what compatibilists miss in their argument that the strongest motive determines the choice is the capacity of moral agents to REASON.
Sounds like the struggle between the mind and the flesh (Rom. 7:22-23).
quote:
3. And, he argues that suspension of choice while weighing the alternatives is not a choice but is a function of MIND (reasoning), by which a decision is eventually made.
Will the mind follow the desires of the flesh or the law of God (Rom. 7)? It's all a matter of disposition. The "mind" in the bible is equated with the "heart".
Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
When one follows the flesh...
Eph 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
When the flesh is crucified with Christ...
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
1Ti 1:5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and [of] a good conscience, and [of] faith unfeigned:
2Ti 2:22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/15/2004 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
quote:
Ummm...I never said we could love or hate a person without knowledge of them of some kind. Why would you think I would deny that we must have some degree of knowledge of a person before we can love or hate them? All I'm saying is that no one can MAKE/CAUSE you to love or hate them; it's up to YOU how you respond to them.
John-
Our response (effect) is directly caused the other person's actions, or their personality, or appearance, etc.
I think you are missing a very important distinction here, lock. I am not talking about involuntary impulses such as, say, noticing a beatiful woman and experiencing the (involuntary) impulse to stare. In such cases, yes, there is a certain involuntariness to how we take in the world as we experience it.
However, if it is your contention that I caused you to respond to me by posting this, you have some real issues, friend. 
The fact is, I posted, as you read it you (ideally) considered what I was saying and formed a response, made up your mind (deliberated), and then proceeded to respond (to something you THOUGHT I was saying). The fact that you misinterpreted my point, while not in itself surprising, plainly reveals that I didn't CAUSE you to respond exactly like you did, for it that were true, then you would not have misunderstood (and therefore misrepresented) what I had said.
Back to the drawing board with my mind-control methods! 
Cordially,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/16/2004 4:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by lock
What is our part in the causal equation besides the choice? We make the choice, but the choice we make depends on the influence of the other person, whether or not we perceive it correctly. Our choice is still the effect of the cause. You would also be correct if we bring into the equation past experience, but yet even our past experience is based on our interaction with causes from other people. Our "reasoning" is the weighing of the influences in order to make our choice.
Lock,
Are you advocating “choice”?  Are you affirming that moral free agents have a “choice” in the matter to love or not to love?
Shalom,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/16/2004 4:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock: You pose the question, but give no answer. Tell me what part we play in the cause?
Tom: We play that part for which we are responsible, that part which is “our’s,” in which we determine and define ourselves with respect to the world. I doubt you fail to see or understand this. On your view, Lock, our choices are no more meaningful than burps or farts, just the involuntary collision of factors x, y, and z, mere effects. Interestingly, in my view each person determines her own responsible choices and not those of others. In your view I determine none of my own and only those of others.
Now, you keep throwing this back in my court every time I ask YOU a question. I don’t think I’m alone in arguing that if what we call our love for another person (or another person’s love for us) were shown to be entirely determined by factors outside the person doing the loving, we would conclude there is nothing left to account for the significance we attach to the notion of love. This seems pretty self-evident to me. It’s universally the case that if one were to discover his wife had played no self-determining part whatsoever in loving him, that her choice to love was entirely determined by factors acting on her will from the outside, he would feel “other” than genuinely loved (notwithstanding your protestations to feel loved in such a situation). You're arguments are the exception that proves the rule.
Same goes for hate, bigotry, racism, loyalty, sacrifice, etc., all of which are choices that reflect on the person making them precisely because they reveal that a person's determination of herself with respect to the world is not merely the effect of outside causes. In that determination is revealed the “person.”
We’re more than cows, Lock. Moooo.
Lock: Again, you make the claim, but do not explain how it is not true love.
Tom: What’s the difference between having sex with your mate and having sex with an inflated balloon partner with a few mechanical parts that respond as effects in a causal chain when touched? In your view I honestly wouldn’t know where the difference lies.
I don’t know why you make this so difficult, Lock. That love occurs between “persons” determining themselves with respect to each other to seek the other’s highest good is by definition incompatible with being the effect of deterministic collision of particles. Every part of this cries out for recognition as something more than what makes cows and other animals react to their environment. Really, I no longer see how, given your view of freedom and your absolute abandonment of morality, you continue to agree with the biblical claim that humankind bears God’s image.
Lock: You have joined Tom by making claims without sufficient explaination. Explain how we can love or hate a person without ever meeting or knowing anything about them.
Tom: We can’t love or hate a person without ever meeting or knowing anything about them. That’s impossible. But since that’s not what we’re claiming, you can come back in from left field if you like. Though we can’t love or hate somebody without knowing them, it’s not the case that in meeting them it’s what THEY bring to us alone that determines whether or not we love or hate them. WE also bring ourselves to the meeting.
Lock: As usual, you [JEE] have said much without saying anything. What is our part in the causal equation besides the choice? We make the choice, but the choice we make depends on the influence of the other person, whether or not we perceive it correctly. Our choice is still the effect of the cause.
Tom: Zzzzzz. Round and round we go.
You’re right, Lock, our part IS our choice. But that just begs the question, what ‘determines’ which choice we make? WE have a part in determining what that choice is. And yes, our choices depend on incoming influences. LFW doesn’t deny this. You can’t choose vanilla over chocolate if vanilla and chocolate aren’t THERE to choose from. But there being vanilla and chocolate to choose from, though necessary to the choice of either vanilla or chocolate, does not itself ‘determine’ the choice. There’s more than a robot involved. We’re persons. So though our choices are effects of causes, there’s no a priori reason to rule out the "person" herself being a cause among causes. In fact, there’s no a priori reason for ruling out the “person” as the final arbiter in the matter if indeed we are to give an account of our "person" to God.
Lock, don’t come back with “You guys aren’t explaining anything at all, wha wha….” It’s getting old and there’s nothing in it. It adds nothing to the conversation except perhaps to suggest that there’s nothing REALLY different between humans and cows.
Mooo Mooo,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Albert Einstein
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 83
| Posted 11/16/2004 5:02 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/16/2004 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Albert Einstein
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 83
| Posted 11/16/2004 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/16/2004 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Father and Son.
I lov u Daddy...I love ya Daddy...I lov Daddy... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/16/2004 7:48 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/16/2004 8:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Lock: You pose the question, but give no answer. Tell me what part we play in the cause?
Tom: We play that part for which we are responsible, that part which is “our’s,” in which we determine and define ourselves with respect to the world. I doubt you fail to see or understand this.
Our choice is the effect. You may be bored, but you have still to explain our part in the CAUSE. Note you own words above, "with respect to the world". We make our choices based on all the information we pull in from the world, whether present or past experiences. From this we base our choice. Why are we speaking of "responsibility"? Is love a sin in which we are held accountable for? You have stated in other posts "we are the cause" but have yet to explain how. You just say we are. You claim it is there, but do not explain where or how. Even modern science fails to substantiate your claims. Is it really boredom that is keeping you from explaining or is there nothing there to explain?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
lock
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 701
| Posted 11/16/2004 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Albert Einstein
quote:
Even modern science fails to substantiate your claims. Is it really boredom that is keeping you from explaining or is there nothing there to explain?
B.S.
modern science shows the indeterminacy at the quantum level
Out past equilibrium, past a series of bifurcation points, there is no way to trace back how you got there.
Our choice is the cause.
Genesis 11:6 The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them."
Our choice is the cause?
I have read about the quantum level research from a link given by Khan, and those who did the research claim it is only a theory and the conditions necessary make it impossible.
I think you better clean up on your cause and effect.
I thought you blocked me out!?
His achievement are we, being created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God makes ready beforehand, that we should be walking in them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Albert Einstein
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 83
| Posted 11/16/2004 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Our choice is the cause?
Yes, those at Babel God said could do anything (the effect) that they purposed (the cause).
Genesis 11:6 The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them."
Originates in the heart:
Matthew 15:
18 "But the things (the effect) that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart (the cause), and those defile the man."
19 "For out of the heart (the cause) come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders (the effect)."
quote:
I have read about the quantum level research from a link given by Khan, and those who did the research claim it is only a theory and the conditions necessary make it impossible.
No, it's been measured (Feynman). Electrons are both particles and probability distributions (waveforms). When the waveform collapses, what's predictable?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 11/16/2004 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/16/2004 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Lock: Is it really boredom that is keeping you from explaining or is there nothing there to explain?
Tom: At this point, Lock, it’s boredom.
Lock: Is love a sin in which we are held accountable for?
Tom: Gee, you really don’t get this, do you? Loving isn’t a sin, Lock. But “not loving” IS a sin.
Lock: You have stated in other posts "we are the cause" but have yet to explain how. You just say we are.
Tom: You mean like this…
Lock: “Our choice is the effect”…?
Now there’s an argument that explains a lot. Wow. Let’s lay it out in all its force, shall we?
Premise 1: Our choice is the effect.
Premise 2: Our choice is the effect.
Premise 3: Our choice is the effect.
Premise 4: Our choice is the effect.
Premise 5: Our choice is the effect.
Conclusion: Therefore, our choice is the effect.
Powerful argument. Powerful.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 184 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:17 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 |
|
|