 | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
But according to others in this group, man doesn't HAVE free will - God knows everything anyone will do from cradle to grave - where is the free will in that? (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Well, I can't speak for others, but here is one take on it. (and I haven't thought this through overly much, so it may have holes...) I don't see a contradiction. If I choose to (X), or to not (X), how does God knowing ahead of time which I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Right, but Tom isn't just saying that God decides in advance which way we'll turn out; Tom is asserting, I believe, that in order for the outcome of an event to be known in advance with absolute certainty, that event must be pre-set in some (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Yep, that about pegged it. If you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God, you're kidding yourself if you don't think the ENTIRE game is rigged from femtosecond one to the end. Free Will is nothing but an illusion in that case. Personally, (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Idunno, it's kinda comforting knowing your weird can't be avoided and all there is is to grip your broadsword and have a cry of Valhalla on your lips. Time is an illusion. :-) Bruce (been playing with Castles too much, methinks) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) See, I knew it had holes. :) Hmm. I don't necessarily hold to the philosophy of predetermination. How does the knowledge of the results of a choice render that choice non-existent? An example of that is that we all know that I replied to Tom's (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Then it is no longer omniscience. (...) Not to the true definition of omniscience. And if you state God is not omniscient, he really can't be considered God anymore. A creator that does not know his work is not a very good creator. Same goes (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Why not? Omnisicence is commonly defined as "knowing all things." What if the set{all things} changes? Where is it writ in stone that omniscience implies or requires knowledge of the future at all? I've been allowing for that assumption so (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
Just popping in with another plausible take on the issue of free will vs. God being omniscient-- I like mathematics. I like looking at fractals and examining complex system behavior. I made an algorithm for playing the brickgame at (URL) . I like (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) An appealing notion, but it's circular and non-falsifiable, like the statement that "God answers all prayers but sometimes the answer is no." These can be comforting on an aesthetic level, but they're not really satisfying logically. Dave! (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) True, but you're speaking as though a finite creator is the same as an infinite Creator. The work of any creditable author contains depth, allusion, and meaning that he didn't realize, much less intend, but that doesn't make the work any less (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
Feel free to jump in, I sometimes don't have time to post here, and if someone else posts a more detailed explanation of what I am stating, it makes it easier on me ;-) (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Oh, I'm not saying I agree with it-- heck, the argument that God exists period can be circular and is non-falsifiable... certainly any statement about Him which therefore presupposes his existence can be said to be so as well. DaveE (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Hmm. I'm not particularly convinced that it is necessary, but I'll grant the point, since it's a theological underpinning for most christian faiths. (...) Hmm. There's not much I can say to that, because it's a pretty closed loop. The phrase (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) A side thought; what might occur in Creation that is unknown to Him? Is there somewhere one can go to be out of His view (rhetorical point--not a real question). Isn't there something in the Bible about noticing the death of each sparrow (or (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
In retrospect, perhaps I should not have responded to David's post. I certainly didn't expect to spend this much time here. :-) I'll do my best to answer questions posed to me, and I don't mind civilized debate, but I don't see how sweeping (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
The only time I have hostility towards Christians (or any other religion) is when they won't shut up and leave me alone when I request it. Beyond that, you can call it bemusement, I guess. (...) An omnipotent, omniscient God removes free will from (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) You keep saying that, but I have yet to grasp the reasoning behind it. <snip> (...) The knowledge of good and evil has been a part of all of us since Adam and Eve - yes. I don't follow you on the coopting/selfish/silly part. (...) lol Yes, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Indeed - Spoken by Christ Himself. (recorded in Matthew and Luke) [1] What you're discussing here is a paradox, not unlike the debate going on around us about truth and morality - right and wrong. (I mean in general, not just this thread) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) (I'll give a more logical breakdown below, but first:) Omnipotent= Can do anything, by the definition you are using. "grant free will" falls under the catagory of anything last I checked. (...) Ok. Let's specifically break out this (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I think "not a single christian in here" is pretty strong. But I'll go "very few in here and proportionally even less in the general population". The only christian *here* i've seen explicitly acknowledge (and integrate into their arguments) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
Finally. Something I can contribute. (I have extracted only the relevant sentences.) The SI prefix femto with symbol f is ten to the minus fifteen. To be on the cutting edge of small, there is the atto with symbol a (10^-18), zepto with symbol z (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Not to mention Zeppo and Gummo. Dave! (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) ten to the power of Marx? <grin, duck & run> James (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Then you aren't reading all the posts in here. (...) I don't believe in Adam and Eve as the true basis of our being. Morals have been around since before the Bible. (...) Thank you. -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) WHY are we worth more than sparrows? WHY would a god instill a soul in only ONE of his creations? -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) You aren't inherently worth more than sparrows. Read it again. You are worth more than many sparrows. That is, some sparrows are worth more than you. :-) Chris (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Free will (was Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity))
|
|
(...) All? No - Just the ones in this thread - and even then it's taking up too much of my time. As I tried to elaborate on before, if I went back in time a minute or a day or whatever and knew that you decided to post this message, how could that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: (...) rotfl :-) Seriously - Why did God create us with an eternal soul? Come on - To know WHY someone does something you would have to know them better than they know themselves. Our (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I guess. But aren't you missing an answer from within your own belief system? If (BIG if) from "Let us create man in our image" we infer that man is imbued with Grace (or the potential for Grace), then it is not unreasonable to say that man, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) I'm a stubborn old goat, sometimes. Found the cite. --> You can have whatever opinions you want. It ain't my place (or anyone else's) to say otherwise. I will also make judgement calls (of others) based on my moral code - I just won't claim (...) (24 years ago, 12-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
(...) Can God actually be limited to our subjective experience? Assuming that our path is unique in the near infinity of possible universes, all of which God understands totally, is it actually possible for God to comprehend how linear this (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
|
Dave Low <stinglessbee@hotSPA...Email.com> wrote in message news:G80HMz.7vD@lugnet.com... (...) knows (...) in (...) haven't (...) which (...) dictating (...) we'll (...) an (...) talking (...) choosing my (...) absolutely (...) our path (...) (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
