my favorite apologist theory.... (page 3)

Sa2ne

We're not free to do what we want. We're constricted in every way. We can't fly unaided. We can't expand to 30 times our size. And in civilized societies we can't decide to kill someone and then go do it. We're not "free" to plot murder, so long as we understand we'll get punished for it. We simply can't do it. The only reason some people manage to do it anyway is because our crime prevention isn't good enough to detect the act in progress and stop it. God could, but he doesn't. When our technology allows us to stop people BEFORE they commit crimes, we will. (Oops, anyone thinking "minority report"?)

Your argument is faulty in its terms. "Free will" assumes that the "will" exists inside reality. Of course we can't "will" ourselves to fly unaided or grow 30 times our size. That's not reality. Otherwise there wouldn't be such a term as "free will" because it would be redundant if compared against fantasy. Unless we could accomplish anything and everything, we couldn't attain "free will."

According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

free will
n.

The ability or discretion to choose

Clearly, we are not able to choose that which is impossible.

Your last point is a classic all-or-nothing bit. No, stopping a rapist doesn't in any way require me to also inhibit a person's thoughts. "Boy, I'd like to have sex with her" and actually planning to rape a woman are two very different things. (Regardless of what the Bible may say about it.) God could allow anyone to think anything, and only intervene when their actions impinged on another person's rights. Where do you draw the line? I don't, but then, I'm not God. Presumably, he would know where to draw the line.

Again, the debate was set within the realm of the bible by the originator of this topic. Whether you care about what the bible says is irrelevant to my argument. A person's thoughts are subject to sin according to the bible. In order to submit to perfect justice, it IS an all or nothing. Otherwise, God would be accused of showing partiality in His justice, which would be less than perfect.

Calliope

if god exists, than satan is really getting a bad rap, because anything bad that happens is so easily redirected to this evil entity, when no one questions why god lets(in italics) it happen.

and then you get comments that begin with:
god's sovereignty... blah blah blah
god's chariot... blah blah blah.

of course, i'm not saying that god doesn't exist...
(dodges thunderous lightning).

calliopé

AlmostAtheist

Again, the debate was set within the realm of the bible by the originator of this topic. Whether you care about what the bible says is irrelevant to my argument. A person's thoughts are subject to sin according to the bible. In order to submit to perfect justice, it IS an all or nothing. Otherwise, God would be accused of showing partiality in His justice, which would be less than perfect.

This seems like such a leap of logic. To say that God MUST control a person's thoughts if he wants to take control of their actions. Can you explain why you believe those two things are linked?

Perhaps I misunderstood the original poster. I thought it was more of a "why do people use this as an argument for God?" type of thread, with the "Bible thumper" label more-or-less loosely applying to anyone with a similar type of god-belief. I could easily be wrong, but that was the impression I was under.

On the free will point: I still don't see how your free will is impinged if God stops you from doing something you're not allowed to do. You've "willed" to do it, you've planned it out, you've done everything in the process except the actual doing it. I could see accusing God of impinging on your "free action" -- but he's certainly never claimed you were free to act in anyway you like. It would seem that in the scenario I describe, your free will would still be intact. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

Dave

Sa2ne

This seems like such a leap of logic. To say that God MUST control a person's thoughts if he wants to take control of their actions. Can you explain why you believe those two things are linked?

I guess I link the action to sin. Sin would be that which is the opposite of perfection. If God is preventing a person's actions, He is preventing the sin. However, according to the bible, even the thoughts are subject to sin. So, the thought and the action are linked in nature on the plane of sin. If God should exercise his power to control one sin, He MUST, by nature (perfection) exercise His power to control all sin (including thoughts that qualify as sin).

Perhaps I misunderstood the original poster. I thought it was more of a "why do people use this as an argument for God?" type of thread, with the "Bible thumper" label more-or-less loosely applying to anyone with a similar type of god-belief. I could easily be wrong, but that was the impression I was under.

And maybe I was mistaken. If so, my apologies. However, my argument (coming from a Christian point of view) centers around the Bible.

On the free will point: I still don't see how your free will is impinged if God stops you from doing something you're not allowed to do. You've "willed" to do it, you've planned it out, you've done everything in the process except the actual doing it. I could see accusing God of impinging on your "free action" -- but he's certainly never claimed you were free to act in anyway you like. It would seem that in the scenario I describe, your free will would still be intact. Do you disagree, and if so, why?

Again, I think we need to define some terms:

will 1 n.

The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action: championed freedom of will against a doctrine of predetermination.
The act of exercising the will.

I compare the term "free will" to that which was displayed in the Garden of Eden. It wasn't just the will of thought that brought about sin. It was also the action of taking and eating the fruit. It wasn't until after the fruit had been eaten that they original couple were cast from the garden. I see that God did claim that Adam and Eve were free to act in anyway they liked. Directly relating to the tree he said they would die in the day they ate from the tree. That implies that they were free to eat from it, but that there would be consequences.

serendipity

Welcome sa2ne !

jwfacts

Terry, if you are correct I just wish God's imagination was not quite so vivid when it comes to pain.
Sa2ne, Welcome. I hope your time on this board teaches you to think outside the parameters set by the WTS. You need to realise that an attack on a WTS doctrine is not an attack on the bible. Many former JWs still worship God and follow the bible, but have found Christianity aligns far better with the bible.
The Sovereignty issue prescribed by the WTS is nonsense. Consider this. Jehovah is the supreme being. There is no doubt in anyones mind about that. Every angel knows that. Do you really think that if a Satan said to God, "Hey God, you don't have the right to rule us." that any sensible angel would have agreed. Of course not. The almighty creator gave, and the creator can take back. The creator is more powerful than all creation combined. So there is no question that God had every right to take from Satan his life on the spot, no questions asked. Then all the suffering would have been avoided.

As a side point, religions that do not follow the Trinity also do not normally believe in Satan as a literal person. They feel that Satan is personified evil for the same reason that JWs believe holy spirit is sometimes a personified force. The WTS has pieced together bits of doctrine from several religions and ended up with quite an illogical mess of belief. Fortunately for them, most JWs are well taught to accept everything they are told by the WTS on face value.

Sa2ne

Serendipity & jwfacts -

Thanks for the welcome. I'm actually not new here. I joined in 2001 under the s/n "sunstarr", but I haven't signed on in a while and I forgot my password. I used to come to this site often, but I just got disgusted with the anti-God (specifically anti-Christian) mentality that was so prevalent on this board. I consider myself a Christian, as I have given my life to Christ and consider Him my Lord/God/Savior. I also believe in the Trinity, although I would choose the word "Tri-unity" to better fit my beliefs. I only really posted in this case because I stumbled across this thread and felt compelled.

Again, thanks for the welcome.

AlmostAtheist

I used to come to this site often, but I just got disgusted with the anti-God (specifically anti-Christian) mentality that was so prevalent on this board.

There's been a swing in the last year or so, and we're getting a shade more balanced. You're in good company in your beliefs.

I see that God did claim that Adam and Eve were free to act in anyway they liked. ; Directly relating to the tree he said they would die in the day they ate from the tree. ; That implies that they were free to eat from it, but that there would be consequences.

It seems we're at a point where we know what it is that we don't agree on, which is a good stopping point. You feel that this decision on God's part -- allow total free will to the point of action that brings far-reaching consequences -- was righteous on his part. I could not agree with that. But there's not much more to be learned on it, it's just a matter of opinion. In my opinion. :-)

If you've more to add, by all means. Otherwise, thanks for the chat. And yes, welcome [back] to the board.

Dave

Sa2ne

It seems we're at a point where we know what it is that we don't agree on, which is a good stopping point. You feel that this decision on God's part -- allow total free will to the point of action that brings far-reaching consequences -- was righteous on his part. I could not agree with that. But there's not much more to be learned on it, it's just a matter of opinion. In my opinion. :-)

I think that's a fair assessment. This has been, by far, the most civilized debate I've ever had on this board. So, thanks for your time and attention. I appreciate it.

jwfacts

You sounded like a JW, so sorry if I insulted you.

my favorite apologist theory....

Share this