100% false, completely illogical. You're either doing that knowingly, because it's the only way for you to defend Calvinism... Or you're doing it unknowingly, because I can see you are conflating foreknowledge and predetermination.Originally Posted by Superfluous Man
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Thank you. + rep.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
More assertions.
Your refusal to provide coherent argumentation to support your claims is conspicuous. You just have a way of looking at this that you can't imagine anyone else seeing it differently. Well, I see it differently.
Yes, I believe that foreknowledge and predeterminism are inseparable.
The question of whether or not any given event is going to happen in the future already has a truth value. It either is going to happen with 100% probability, when viewed from an omniscient perspective, or it is not going to happen with a 100% probability. The reasons we see future events as open to either possibility is because of our lack of knowledge. If we could see them with the certainty that they actually have, we would have no difficulty accepting determinism, and we would have no difficulty seeing that human moral responsibility remains in tact.
Whether or not this is compatible with "free will" (if "free will" is even a meaningful concept at all) is a separate question, which probably just depends on how you define and conceive of free will.
But if your nature and actions have been predetermined, I don't see the "I" who's choosing to act. I see someone who is inextricably bound to act in a way that someone else had already decided he shall act.
And I don't buy the notion that if my action has been been predetermined I can still decide things on my own.I also definitely don't deny that man can decide things on his own. I just deny that man does so in a way that is not predetermined.
It's forced in the sense that they have no choice, and that whatever will they have has been given to them by God. They cannot choose to act in a manner that has already been determined, and it's fatuous to claim that they have anything like a choice.Why do you say "forced"? That implies that it's against their wills. But it's not. They do have a will, as I've already said, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
It's like a magician who fans a deck and asks you to pick a card. Unbeknownst to you, all of the cards are the eight of clubs. You draw a card and before you look at it the magician tells you that you have drawn the eight of clubs. Ask yourself: did you really have the choice to draw any card other than the eight of clubs?
If man is morally responsible for acting in a manner that's already been determined, he's playing against a stacked deck.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
That person is the "I."
Exactly. It's not a position that you've arrived at by reason. You simply assumed it.
But they do have a choice. Yes, whatever will they have has been given to them by God. That doesn't mean they don't make choices.
Where else do you think their will came from? Some other uncaused first cause besides God? Or, it just came into existence without any prior cause? Obviously when we came into existence with the natures that we had that would determine our preferences and prerogatives and receptivenesses to all the stimuli we would encounter in the world, we didn't choose those natures. We were stuck with them, and the choices we would go on to make either were in accordance with them, such as when we sin, or were not in accordance with them, such as when God works within us to love and trust him.
You're just defining the word "choice" to make your view come out on top. That's not giving a reason, just an assertion.
Except it's not like that at all. Once again, you provide an illustration that perfectly shows how determinism does not negate the making of choices. In real life choices, there is the whole deck of cards, and we are free to choose whichever one we want, which we go on to do without anyone stopping us. And in every instance the likelihood of our making the choice we make, when viewed from an omniscient point of reference, is 100%.
Last edited by Superfluous Man; 12-15-2016 at 02:06 PM.
Wrong, I already walked you through specific examples that pointed out your contradiction, and it fell on deaf ears... or blind eyes. So you claim I haven't proven it to you.
Secondly, when debating this with people, it is dishonest for you to use foreknowledge and predetermination interchangeably, and you've been doing that a lot in your recent posts. You're going back and forth in your arguments ... from foreknowledge to predetermination which are not the same thing.
I'm going to get back to this little later. Your inability to see your illogic is making me want to bang my head on the wall, but I'm not going to give up on you just yet. I'll be back.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
What post was that?
Your failure to provide good arguments is not the fault of my ears or eyes.
If I've said something illogical, then please show me the syllogism that proves it wrong. When you claim that your position is logically necessary, that means that you can prove, using logic, that it must be so. Just believing it because it seems obvious to you, even though it's not obvious to me or most people who have lived in the history of the world, doesn't count as logic.
I could say the same for your assumption of a unique deity that has total foreknowledge and who has predetermined everything. One needn't posit a sentient supernatural being who predetermines everything. As I said before, the "first cause" argument is illogical, because it negates the very assumption is starts out with -- namely, that everything has a cause. But even if you posit an uncaused first cause, what permits you to assume its other characteristics, such as sentience and foreknowledge? What permits you to say there is only one first cause and not many? If one god can be uncaused, why can't several?
Why do you assume this? How in the world go you know that God wants us to love Him? Aren't you implicitly assuming other things (e.g., the validity of Biblical passages that claim this)?such as when God works within us to love and trust him.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Gosh. Y'all lost me. What's the immediate disagreement right now? And is there any agreement? Help a brother out.
Some is argument for argument sake..
some is confusion. and some is a deliberate attempt to distort.
There is enough error without compounding it.
For now we see in part,,,
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004
Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
It's all about Freedom
Seems like these discussions get way complicated. But in an intellectual kind of way that often is a little over my head. I try to follow along. I'm in the Christ accepts whomsoever will group, though.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-16-2016 at 03:16 PM.
The simple truths are the ones so vehemently distorted.
The pure Gospel is simple..
as as the early lessons (Milk),,
It seems that strong meat is only for the grown.
ya have to chew on it a while.
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004
Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
It's all about Freedom
Nobody disputes this, the dispute is over whether some will while others dont, and if the willing is the grounds of acceptance or the result thereof.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
*thumbsup* There is merit in thoughtful philosophy, theology, Christology, anthropology, etc, but Christianity as handed down to us by our ancestors in Christ has many mysteries to it that we as mortals can't and never will be able to fully understand. For example, the mystery of the Eucharist. There comes a point (rather quickly) where analyzing it with Western methods becomes redundant mental wanking and strips the mystery of its fullness and meaning.
Well, what about For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life?
Who are we to dispute the Word of the Lord? Hm? Who? It seems a little arrogant to me. And why? Why do we dispute the Word of the Lord? What causes us to dispute His Word?
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-16-2016 at 03:47 PM.
Here is the recent debate. Superfluous Man's position is that all of our actions are predetermined by God. In other words, God created certain people who are preprogrammed to believe and accept Him, and He created other people preprogrammed to reject Him and go to hell eternally.
His view means that we have no free will, in other words, no way to choose our actions. That basically amounts to us being robots, but he will not admit that.
He is claiming that mankind DOES make their own decisions.... while at the same time claiming that God made their decisions for them.
What he is trying to say, I think, is that we do make our own decisions, but God knows them beforehand. I think everyone here agrees on that.
But the problem is, he is mixing up foreknowledge with predetermination.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Oh, I see. Mixing up foreknowledge with predetermination. Gotcha. Thanks, lily.
The biblical term "foreknowledge" doesn't provide any support to the foreseen faith position as far as I can tell. Although I have seen scripture pulled from and separated from its biblical context/tenor in order to restructure its meaning into a desired meaning. This is what we call proof-texting.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-16-2016 at 03:59 PM.
Just to add....as I and others have said many times, there are things that our limited human minds cannot fully understand. Now we cannot understand, but later we will. ("For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.")
One of those things is how God's foreknowledge can coexist with human free will. Calvinists make the mistake of coming up with a false doctrine, instead of simply trusting that one day we will be able to understand this paradox.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
//Well, what about For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life?
Who are we to dispute the Word of the Lord? Hm? Who? It seems a little arrogant to me. And why? Why do we dispute the Word of the Lord? What causes us to dispute His Word?
I'd appreciate an answer to my question. Thanks!
As it is, whosoever believeth in him certainly indicates that some will and some won't. Does it not?
And not only that but it follows in the very same sentence that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life which certainly does directly indicate that whosoever is willing is within the grounds of acceptance as well as the result thereof. Does it not? If not, then why not? This is the Gospel.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-16-2016 at 05:31 PM.
Yeah, Deut. 29:29 rings a bell here.
The conditions of Election have not been told to us in the Bible. Not once.
And not to knock on anyone's faith but it's just a biblical fact that both Arminians and Calvinists are wrong to make such claims about election. Election doesn't belong to them any more than anyone else. And God does not tell us that it does.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 12-16-2016 at 04:13 PM.
Simple is all I can handle. Seriously. I agree that a feller do have to chew on it a while, still. You know what the hardest thing for me was for the longest time? Not trying to challenge everything I read in the Bible. Seriously.
Ah well. I didn't mean to chase everyone away. Proceed...
Exactly! This is the problem when someone tries to use human logic and reasoning to describe something which is beyond human understanding and human reasoning. It is why it is called a mystery. This desire to empirically understand sacramental grace and aspects of God's nature through human logic can only go so far. And we should definitely not define such mysteries in this way. Same thing with the Eucharist. We cannot understand how the bread and the wine turns into the body and blood of Christ. We simply take it by faith and bow to the mystery.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
I agree with you in principle, but we part ways on Transubstantiation. But that's a whole other controversial discussion.
Last edited by lilymc; 12-16-2016 at 04:36 PM.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Fair enough! We can leave that discussion for another day!I agree with you in principle, but we part ways on Transubstantiation. But that's a whole other controversial discussion.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Why not start a topic? There's no day like today, I always say.
There are a few reasons!
First, I'm getting ready to go out to a Christmas party
Second, it's been debated already plenty of times
Lastly, I'm enjoying the peace in this forum, especially with some of our friends here, and don't want to start a new thread war! lol
That being said, if I drink a little too much egg nog tonight, all bets are off!
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Oh, it's okay. Heh. I already looked it up anyway. That was kind of a long word.
Alright, TER. Enjoy your party, man.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us