Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast
Results 571 to 600 of 629

Thread: Christ Accepts Whomsoever Will, Especially the Sinner

  1. #571
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Of course, He comes to the door and knocks, but He expects us to get up and open the door and let Him in. So, I cannot agree with you that He does not extend His grace in response to anything in man.

    Even our getting up and opening the door is because of an act of God's grace within us efficaciously prompting us to do that (as John Cassian said in the quote I just provided you). Prior to that act of grace within us, by our own natures, every inclination of ours was not to get up and open the door, but to remain God's enemies.

    For some people who choose to be God's enemies and remain seated and not open the door, God hardens their hearts so that they will stay that way forever. For other people who choose to be God's enemies and remain seated and not open the door, God softens their hearts and prompts them to change their minds, and he keeps doing so until they actually do. There is nothing in this latter group that they have to commend themselves to God to get him to do that for them. There is no reason he should not leave them in their enmity against him the same way he does for the former group, except for God's own perfect will.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #572
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    That's just because you define the terms "free will" and "author of sin" according to your system, in order to make it so that predestination is incompatible with free will and predestination of people to sin make God an author of sin. But that's just you refusing to look at things outside your box.

    You say things like, "It's obvious that if God chooses for us then we don't choose for ourselves," and you can't prove this thing that's so obvious to you, and so obviously false to me. You just assert it, and refuse to consider the possibility of your being wrong about it.

    As you can see from the quote I just provided from John Cassian, the term "free will" has not always been used the way you insist on using it. Neither, by the way, is the phrase "author of sin." Historically, when theologians have insisted that God is not the author of sin, they don't mean to exclude his providential superintention of human sin, but only to exclude the possibility that he himself does wrong when he does that.
    You're getting too caught up in mere wording. Forget the term "free will" for the moment, and think about what you actually believe.

    You (correct me if I'm wrong) believe that God pre-programmed some people to reject Him and go to hell... and those people, during their life, never had the ability or choice to accept God... in essence, they were robots, forced to perform a certain way and be damned eternally.

    And the amazing thing is, you don't see any problem with that. The brainwashing/deception is deep with those who see no problem with that.
    “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

  4. #573
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    You're getting too caught up in mere wording. Forget the term "free will" for the moment, and think about what you actually believe.

    You (correct me if I'm wrong) believe that God pre-programmed some people to reject Him and go to hell... and those people, during their life, never had the ability or choice to accept God... in essence, they were robots, forced to perform a certain way and be damned eternally.

    And the amazing thing is, you don't see any problem with that. The brainwashing/deception is deep with those who see no problem with that.
    No. I don't believe anyone is mere robots, and I would defy you to find a quote of me saying I do. I would also defy you to find a quote of Sola_Fide saying he believes we're mere robots. I'm sure he doesn't say that either.

    Again, you keep insisting on looking at it according to your system and vocabulary.

    The belief that all fallen people, by their own sinful nature, will always reject God and have no ability to accept him is the historic position of all of Christianity. The denial of this is what Pelagius was declared a heretic for.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 12-14-2016 at 11:47 PM.

  5. #574
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    No. I don't believe anyone is mere robots, and I would defy you to find a quote of me saying I do. I would also defy you to find a quote of Sola_Fide saying he believes we're mere robots. I'm sure he doesn't say that either.
    That and more.. though not using the word robot.. He made a point of absolute no choice whatsoever.

    And I have disputed that with him in the past as he mucked up threads re-posting the same few verses over and over again.

    He takes total determinism to it's absurd end.
    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

  6. #575
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    That and more.. though not using the word robot.
    I don't think it's no accident that he avoids using the word "robot." Because I don't believe that he thinks of people as robots or puppets, or whatever other impersonal word his opponents might claim to be certain he really means but never says.

  7. #576
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    No. I don't believe anyone is mere robots, and I would defy you to find a quote of me saying I do.

    Again, you keep insisting on looking at it according to your system and vocabulary.
    You're not being intellectually honest. Forget mere words, and deal with meaning. I asked you earlier if a person who God pre-programmed to reject Him and go to hell had any actual choice in the matter.... could they have believed/accepted God? And without actually saying the word "no" - you agreed that the person could never have chosen otherwise. So whether you want to admit it or not, what you believe boils down to people being mere robots, or puppets. You just don't want to admit it.

    The believe that all fallen people, by their own nature, will always reject God and have no ability to accept him is the historic position of all of Christianity.
    Your idea of Christianity is different than mine. You seem to look to churches, denominations, fallible human beings. To me what matters is the actual truth...God's word. Jesus. I know that TER, HB, and others would disagree with me, but I believe that some of the biggest churches were infiltrated early on. That is why I think it's important to look to the word of God and Christianity in its simplest, purest form. Not religion.

    But getting back to what you said... Of course God pursues us, and not the other way around, in our natural state. He "knocks on our door" but we still have to respond. It is up to US to respond in the right way... to either open the door, or reject Him and keep the door closed.

    According to Calvinism, God does not love all people he created, only "the elect." According to Calvinism, Jesus didn't die for all people, only a small group you call "the elect." Not only does that go against countless scriptures, it goes against the very nature of God. God is love. Not a capricious, control-freak, monster puppeteer God of Calvinism.

    Thank God.
    “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



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #577
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    You're not being intellectually honest. Forget mere words, and deal with meaning. I asked you earlier if a person who God pre-programmed to reject Him and go to hell had any actual choice in the matter.... could they have believed/accepted God? And without actually saying the word "no" - you agreed that the person could never have chosen otherwise. So whether you want to admit it or not, what you believe boils down to people being mere robots, or puppets. You just don't want to admit it.



    Your idea of Christianity is different than mine. You seem to look to churches, denominations, fallible human beings. To me what matters is the actual truth...God's word. Jesus. I know that TER, HB, and others would disagree with me, but I believe that some of the biggest churches were infiltrated early on. That is why I think it's important to look to the word of God and Christianity in its simplest, purest form. Not religion.

    But getting back to what you said... Of course God pursues us, and not the other way around, in our natural state. He "knocks on our door" but we still have to respond. It is up to US to respond in the right way... to either open the door, or reject Him and keep the door closed.

    According to Calvinism, God does not love all people he created, only "the elect." According to Calvinism, Jesus didn't die for all people, only a small group you call "the elect." Not only does that go against countless scriptures, it goes against the very nature of God. God is love. Not a capricious, control-freak, monster puppeteer God of Calvinism.

    Thank God.
    But that's not Christianity in any form. That's philosophy. Some have called it "Deism" or "Gnosticism". Christianity (including all the heterodox varieties I'm aware of) by nature recognizes the reality of God-a religious concept. This is very clear from even a superficial reading of the synoptic gospels. ~hugs~
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 12-15-2016 at 12:46 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  10. #578
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    But that's not Christianity in any form. That's philosophy. Some have called it "Deism" or "Gnosticism". Christianity (including all the heterodox varieties I'm aware of) by nature recognizes the reality of God-a religious concept. This is very clear from even a superficial reading of the synoptic gospels. ~hugs~
    What isn't?
    “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

  11. #579
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    You're not being intellectually honest. Forget mere words, and deal with meaning. I asked you earlier if a person who God pre-programmed to reject Him and go to hell had any actual choice in the matter.... could they have believed/accepted God? And without actually saying the word "no" - you agreed that the person could never have chosen otherwise. So whether you want to admit it or not, what you believe boils down to people being mere robots, or puppets. You just don't want to admit it.



    Your idea of Christianity is different than mine. You seem to look to churches, denominations, fallible human beings. To me what matters is the actual truth...God's word. Jesus. I know that TER, HB, and others would disagree with me, but I believe that some of the biggest churches were infiltrated early on. That is why I think it's important to look to the word of God and Christianity in its simplest, purest form. Not religion.

    But getting back to what you said... Of course God pursues us, and not the other way around, in our natural state. He "knocks on our door" but we still have to respond. It is up to US to respond in the right way... to either open the door, or reject Him and keep the door closed.

    According to Calvinism, God does not love all people he created, only "the elect." According to Calvinism, Jesus didn't die for all people, only a small group you call "the elect." Not only does that go against countless scriptures, it goes against the very nature of God. God is love. Not a capricious, control-freak, monster puppeteer God of Calvinism.

    Thank God.
    Well said. I too, believe Satan's spirit (which traverses the earth) made sure to infiltrate all religions to cause massive confusion and cause disbelief in many people. That angers God a great deal. That is why the Bible is his letter to us, to gain the knowledge and wisdom to rebuke Satan and his followers.

    James 1:5 (KJV)
    If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

    James 3:17 (KJV)
    But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

    Proverbs 4:7 (KJV)
    7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

    Proverbs 19:20 (KJV)
    Hear counsel, and receive instruction, that thou mayest be wise in thy latter end.



    This is the only freedom we will ever need in the flesh.

    John 8:32 (KJV)
    32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  12. #580
    Looking forward to discussing this topic further and that we will start searching the writings of the Fathers to better understand what the apostles handed down.

    Since St. John Cassian was mentioned above, I will like to offer a little historical background for those who may not be aware of who he is:

    The Curious Case of St. John Cassian

    August 13, 2012 by Fr. Stephen
    link

    St. John Cassian, in his 75 year life lived at the turn of the fifth century, interacted with every major Christian figure of the Patristic Age, founded monasticism in the West, laid the theological foundation for the ‘Seven Deadly Sins’, wrote the papal brief for the position of the Roman See at the Third Ecumenical Council, and wrote the most read work of devotional piety in late antique and medieval Latin Christianity. He is more likely than not the first saint ‘canonized’ by a Pope of Old Rome. Nonetheless, today, nearly no one has heard of him. His name has been removed from the popular Western calendar, and outside of the Provence, his feast day is not regularly celebrated by Western Christians. Those who have heard of him, primarily Protestants of a Calvinist stripe, hold him as the historical personage in which all of Christianity went wrong (a slander similar to the way in which some Orthodox scholars have treated St. Augustine of Hippo). How exactly this happened is one of the real curiosities of Church history and patristics.

    Born ca. 360 in Scythia (modern day Romania) and given the name Cassianus, the saint first emerges in history some 20 years later. Having journeyed to Palestine (specifically Bethlehem) and entered the monastic life (there given the name ‘John’), Cassian journeyed with his friend, St. Germanus, to Egypt, there to study the more rigorous and (already at that early date) more traditional way of life of the desert. St. John there overstayed the release he had been given by his monastic elder by a period of several years, and this seems to have led to a situation in which he was no longer able to return to his original monastic home. Around the year 400, he and St. Germanus made their way to Constantinople. There they were ordained (St. Germanus a presbyter and St. John a deacon) and were part of St. John Chrysostom’s inner circle of clergy during his initial period as archbishop. Cassian’s specific task was the oversight of the treasury, which included both overseeing moneys managed by the Church and various objects and vessels of great value of ecclesiastical use. At the infamous Synod of the Oak, it was St. Germanus who brought Chrysostom’s response to the case against him and argued it against his opponents. When those efforts failed, St. John Cassian was dispatched to Rome to seek the support of the Pope of Rome in restoring St. John Chrysostom to his see.

    After his journey to Rome, St. John Cassian settled in the West after forming a friendship with the Archdeacon Leo (later St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome). He was ordained a presbyter, and was charged with bringing the monastic life of the East to Western Europe. He did so by two means: First, by establishing the Monastery of St. Victor in Gaul (what is now Marseilles to be precise) and second through the composition of his work The Institutes of the Cenobitic Life. The latter is a treasure trove of historical information, as St. John systematically compares and contrasts the traditions of Egypt and Palestine in all aspects of monastic life, and offers suggestions as to how the basic principles involved might find indigenous expression in Western Europe. The latter portion of the Institutes consists of a discussion of the ‘Eight Evil Thoughts’, which would later become the Seven Deadly Sins as they are known in the Western tradition. After concluding that work, St. John Cassian began another, his most famous, The Conferences. This work is really a collection of 24 shorter works, written as dialogues between St. Germanus and various of the Desert Fathers during St. John’s time in Egypt. These 24 Conferences were published in several small batches, one of which, comprising Conferences 11-17, would become the primary source of the controversy concerning St. John’s life and work.

    The second decade of the fifth century in the West was rocked by one primary doctrinal controversy, that surrounding Pelagius, the British monk who had begun travelling the major cities of the Empire, preaching repentance, and focusing uncompromisingly upon every human being’s accountability before God. Most alarmingly, he proclaimed that Divine Grace was not necessary for salvation. Grace was, for Pelagius, a sort of fall back plan, a source of forgiveness for the lapsed. But for him the goal and purpose of the Christian life was never to lapse, and he claimed it was perfectly within the province of even fallen humanity to live a sinless and perfect life without any supernatural assistance and thereby attain to salvation. It was clear to many, chief among them St. Augustine, that this was heresy. Until this time, however (meaning the first two Ecumenical Councils and their related local councils), orthodoxy and heresy had been focused on conceptions of the Holy Trinity and the person of the Son in particular, not matters related to the path of salvation as such. Having brought Pelagius before the Holy Synod of Jerusalem for condemnation, Augustine was astonished that they cleared him of charges after only examining him regarding the Holy Trinity and the Creed. This set the Bishop of Hippo to writing, and his Anti-Pelagian works (quite literally) fill volumes. Finally, in 418, St. Augustine was successful in having Pelagius and his false teachings anathematized by the Council of Carthage.

    In the process of arguing against Pelagius, however, St. Augustine had adopted (or at least seemed to adopt as a position from which to argue) the opposite extreme position. He seemed to argue for a form of Predestination and Reprobation in which human beings were completely passive in their salvation (as the flesh was a source only for concupiscence) and lived their entire lives of relative sanctity or wickedness playing out a pre-existing divine plan. At its extreme, St. Augustine even made the statement that the Holy Spirit had to constantly restrain the human flesh of Christ’s impulses in order to keep Him from sinning. These ideas were just as disturbing to many segments of the Church as those of Pelagius had been. It was especially disturbing to many of the fledgeling monastic communities in the West, whom St. John Cassian was serving. Therefore St. John composed Conference 13, “On Divine Protection”, in which he sets forward the basic principle of synergy in the Christian life. Pelagius was wrong that fallen man can do good and act under his own natural powers. Likewise, however, St. Augustine was wrong that God acts upon a passive (or actively fighting to fulfill opposite impulse) humanity. Rather, at the center of St. John’s text, every Christian ought, to quote St. Paul, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God Who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” The Divine Energies are the beginning, end, and basis of salvation, but do not negate, overpower, or snuff out the human.

    At the end of his life, St. John Cassian’s final writing task was his Treatise Against Nestorius. Composed in 430 at the behest of Archdeacon Leo, the Treatise is really a sort of brief for the Pope of Rome explaining to him what the issues were with Nestorius’ Christology to allow him to prepare for what became the Third Ecumenical Council. Interestingly, in order to explain the Christological issues that St. Cyril had against Nestorius to a Latin audience, St. John connects Nestorius’ heresy to that of Pelagius. In the same way, he argues, that Pelagius separated the Divine Energies, God Himself, from His Creation, Nestorius was attempting to separate the Divine person of the Son from Christ’s human nature in a way which makes salvation impossible. Because of this connection drawn by St. John, at the Third Ecumenical Council, the anathema against Pelagius was renewed by the entire Church at the same time that Nestorius was condemned.

    At the time of St. John Cassian’s repose in 435, there was no question whatsoever that he was in the full communion of the Church, and that he had been one of Her greatest spiritual teachers. Even those partisans of St. Augustine who had attempted to argue back against Conference 13, like Prosper of Aquitane, took issue with only ‘the author of the Conferences‘, being unwilling to speak St. John’s name in a negative light. A century and a half later, St. Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome, was so devoted to St. John’s memory that he had his relics at the monastery of St. Victor placed in a silver coffer of his own design, inscribed with ‘Saint John Cassian’. Thomas Aquinas, as was common in many monastic orders of the Medieval West, read portions of Holy Scripture and portions of the Conferences every day as part of his prayer rule. In the East, not only was St. John’s sanctity unquestioned, he is the only Latin author whose work is included in the Apophthegmata, the collection of sayings of the desert fathers and mothers.

    Then, during the Protestant Reformation, the history of the Christian West was rather cleverly revised. The project, of course, of the Reformation was to attempt to return the Western church to its original state, after centuries of corruption and creeping error. St. Augustine, as a Church Father, was looked to, especially by the Calvinist ‘wing’ of the Reformed camp as one of the purest sources of doctrine from the perceived height of the Western Church’s theological power and influence. While St. Augustine’s theology still undergirded much of the doctrine of the West, the positions expressed (especially in the extreme form there presented) in the Anti-Pelagian writings were no place in evidence in the theology of a Gabriel Biel. Rather than concluding, as is accurate, that those views were corrected partially by St. Augustine himself in his Retractions, partly by other Fathers like St. John Cassian, and in the greatest part by the guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit through history, the Reformed instead concluded that there was a historical move away from an original predestinarianism and monergism during St. Augustine’s time or afterward, and that this movement formed part of the corruption of the Western church which was in need of reform. As he was the first and most prestigious respondent to St. Augustine’s views, St. John Cassian became an obvious target.

    Seeing St. John Cassian’s position of synergism as a sort of ‘compromise’ between the human monergism of Pelagius and the Divine monergism of St. Augustine, the 16th century Reformed coined a new term: Semi-Pelagianism. Though they now had a good term linking St. John, ironically, to the man whose heresy he had actually brought to universal condemnation, historically speaking in both West and East, it was St. John’s position which had clearly won the day not only in terms of subsequent history (which the Reformed could write off as tainted) but also amongst his peers in the fifth century, many of whom were simultaneously being looked to by the Reformed as pillars of orthodoxy. In order to complete the historical revision, then, the early Reformed lit upon an episode that took place 100 years after St. John’s death, connected to him only in that it involved a subsequent generation of monks at the monastery in Marseilles which he had founded.

    In the early 6th century, a heresy known as Massilianism had arisen in the Provence. In essence, the monastic clergy in the area were postponing baptism for recipients out of a belief that baptism, seen as the first interaction of the human person with divine grace sacramentally, must be merited by the recipient. In practical terms, an initiate to the Christian faith had to repent, amend his life, and become morally pure in advance in order to be worthy of being baptized. This was seen at the time to be a form of Pelagianism in that it held as a necessary presupposition that a person could somehow, apart from divine grace and the life of the Church, perfect him or herself in order to be worthy of reception into the Kingdom. This particular heresy was condemned by a local council, the Second Council of Orange, in 529. The Council was careful, however, in addition to recondemning Pelagianism, to also condemn the concept of reprobation (or predestination to damnation) on the opposite extreme, and to clearly teach that holy baptism has as its primary effect the remission of sins.

    Despite the fact that the Reformed deny baptismal regeneration (that baptism actually forgives sins) and that they believed in the doctrine of reprobation so clearly anathematized by the Second Council of Orange, they re-branded Massilianism as a type of Semi-Pelagianism, then used the coincidence of Marseilles to tie this ‘Semi-Pelagianism’ to St. John’s (albeit quite different) supposed Semi-Pelagianism in order to assert that St. John Cassian’s views were condemned by the Second Council of Orange, casting St. Augustine’s most extreme positions as ‘the patristic viewpoint’. Despite its lack of basis in fact and the incredible tenuousness of its logic, this narrative prevails to this day in nearly all Protestant treatments of the topic. To compound the issue, rather than muster to St. John’s defense, the Rome of Trent yielded him completely, such that this narrative is even now frequently found in Roman Catholic sources, choosing to remove him from their calendar and defend only their (then) current teaching on merit and infused created grace. In truth, such a defense may have been impossible in the 16th century, as the theological categories in which Rome then spoke had ‘progressed’ so far beyond the mind of the Fathers as to render much of their work unintelligible (especially the Eastern Fathers).

    Aside from the gross distortions of Christian history in the West and the slandering of a great and holy man, this re-characterization of St. John Cassian has had one particularly disastrous effect: It has deprived Christians of some of the greatest spiritual writing in the Church’s history. St. John composed all of his works in Latin, and so the East has known (and loved) him only through Greek quotations, excerpts, and summaries. His works in their entirety, in the original Latin, were entrusted to the West, and after the 16th century, they were largely abandoned. Perhaps the greatest evidence of this is the fact that even a resource such as Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers contains only portions of the Institutes and the Conferences. In fact, the first complete translation of the Conferences into English was published only in 1997. Fortunately, Christians of our era are finally in a position to reclaim these works, this portion of our shared history, and the man St. John Cassian himself.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  13. #581
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    I don't think it's no accident that he avoids using the word "robot." Because I don't believe that he thinks of people as robots or puppets, or whatever other impersonal word his opponents might claim to be certain he really means but never says.
    That's because he's either too intellectually dishonest to admit that in his view men are equivalent to robots or he's too dense to grasp the obvious.

    You say man sins willfully. But where did that willfulness come from? In your view, it's God. God programs men to have a certain will and to perform certain actions which are labeled "sin". How does this differ from programming a robot? It doesn't. In post #502 you rejected the premise that people making their decisions and God making their decisions are incompatible. This is what I can't understand, because if everything has been predetermined man cannot make a decision because the decision has already been made for him. He is a helpless robot who can do nothing except what God has programmed him to do. Man doesn't decide anything, because in the common meaning of the word making a decision means that one has a choice. But in your view everything has been predetermined, and there is no choice.

    In post # 472 you said, "The problem isn't with those who willfully sin and are condemned, getting exactly what they deserve." Why do they deserve condemnation when the one doing the condemning is the one who made them sin in the first place? This makes no sense.

    So all the talk about sin, redemption, obeying God's commands, importuning people to stop sinning and seek Christ, etc. is merely empty rhetoric that is devoid of any moral significance because the program has already been written. This gloomy theology echoes Macbeth's description of life as being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Pardon me for not wanting to see myself as a robot.
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 12-15-2016 at 10:04 AM.
    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

  14. #582
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    You're not being intellectually honest. Forget mere words, and deal with meaning. I asked you earlier if a person who God pre-programmed to reject Him and go to hell had any actual choice in the matter.... could they have believed/accepted God? And without actually saying the word "no" - you agreed that the person could never have chosen otherwise. So whether you want to admit it or not, what you believe boils down to people being mere robots, or puppets. You just don't want to admit it.
    How can I answer you if I don't pay attention to the words you use. It's up to you to say what you mean.

    I am being honest. I do not believe we are robots or puppets. I do not believe that having our choices predestined makes us robots. I object to using the word "pre-programmed," because of that connotation.

    You keep asserting that predestination makes us robots. But you can't provide any proof to support your conclusion. It's a pure caricature.

    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    Your idea of Christianity is different than mine. You seem to look to churches, denominations, fallible human beings. To me what matters is the actual truth...God's word.
    Why do you think I do that? The reason I believe in predestination is because the Bible teaches it. I used to hate the doctrine just like you do, until I studied Romans and my eyes were opened and I came to wonder at the glory of God's grace, as he taught me that even my faith in him came about because of his mercy.

    I like to bring up church history, partly to counter your caricature that the things I'm saying are "Calvinism," and partly because I know it's of interest to others here.

    It's clear that your theology is Pelagian. You are practically saying the very things he said against Augustine. And it's true that this theology was condemned by the Church as heresy. But the reason it's heresy is ultimately not because some human beings said so, but because the Bible says so.

    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    But getting back to what you said... Of course God pursues us, and not the other way around, in our natural state.
    You're contradicting yourself. Right above in this very message you claimed that my belief that it's impossible for someone to accept God makes them a robot. Now you're agreeing that it is impossible. God pursues us, not the other way around.

    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    He "knocks on our door" but we still have to respond. It is up to US to respond in the right way... to either open the door, or reject Him and keep the door closed.
    Yes. That's true. And God does more than knock on the door, he works within our hearts prompting us to open it. And for some he does this efficaciously. For others he does not. The former group opens the door unto salvation, 100% by God's grace at every step including their response. The latter group does not, because their sinful nature is at enmity to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    According to Calvinism, God does not love all people he created, only "the elect."
    This is false. God loves people in different ways. Love is action, not passion. God does various gracious and good acts to all people. But he does not save all people, only those who believe, who are the elect. And their belief itself comes about by God's grace and not their own doing. So this is an act of love that God does perform only for the elect. This isn't "Calvinism." It's Christianity, and it is the consistent belief of Christianity since the very beginning.

  15. #583
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    No. I don't believe anyone is mere robots, and I would defy you to find a quote of me saying I do. I would also defy you to find a quote of Sola_Fide saying he believes we're mere robots. I'm sure he doesn't say that either.

    Again, you keep insisting on looking at it according to your system and vocabulary.
    Question. What is YOUR definition of a robot? Put up or shut up.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  16. #584
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    That's because he's either too intellectually dishonest to admit that in his view men are equivalent to robots or he's too dense to grasp the obvious.
    Or else he's right, and his view does not make men the equivalent of robots, and those who say it does are setting up a straw man.

    Notably, nobody who claims this has provided anything resembling a logical argument backing their claim up.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #585
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    I do not believe that having our choices predestined makes us robots. I object to using the word "pre-programmed," because of that connotation.
    Please explain very carefully how a man whose actions have been predetermined differs from a robot whose actions have been pre-programmed.

    [Edited to reverse the comparison.]
    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

  19. #586
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Question. What is YOUR definition of a robot? Put up or shut up.
    Great question. Interestingly, I don't think anybody who has made the charge has provided a definition yet. So it's odd that I would be asked to first.

    I don't know if I can come up with a good definition. But I can say ways that robots and people are different:
    1. A robot does not have a will.
    2. A robot does not have a soul.
    3. A robot is not morally responsible for its actions.
    4. A robot is not made in the image and likeness of God.

  20. #587
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Please explain very carefully how a robot whose actions have been pre-programmed differs from a man whose actions have been predetermined.
    Notice how you don't take up the challenge yourself and explain how they are the same. Why is that?

    I just gave 4 points in my response to jmdrake. I would say the same here.

    Also, God's actions themselves are predetermined. Everything he does is perfectly according to his perfect nature, and in every instance there is a 0% chance of his doing anything different than what he does. Surely it would be absurd to say this makes God a robot.

  21. #588
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Great question. Interestingly, I don't think anybody who has made the charge has provided a definition yet. So it's odd that I would be asked to first.

    I don't know if I can come up with a good definition. But I can say ways that robots and people are different:
    1. A robot does not have a will.
    2. A robot does not have a soul.
    3. A robot is not morally responsible for its actions.
    4. A robot is not made in the image and likeness of God.
    Robots actually have wills. Robots just don't have free will. But robots most certainly have a will. You should go to a local university at sit in on advanced artificial intelligence seminars before making such an uninformed statement.

    Okay. Robots don't have "souls" but that's a distinction without a difference.

    To be really made in the likeness and image of God you have to have freewill because God has freewill.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  22. #589
    Here is what dictionary.com has for the word "robot."
    1. a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command.
    2.a person who acts and responds in a mechanical, routine manner, usually subject to another's will; automaton.
    3. any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with humanlike skill.
    I think the definition that people here are trying to use is the second one.

    I would say that we are not robots by that definition because we are subject to our own wills, and the way God works through us does not bypass our wills, but uses them. We do not respond in mechanical, routine manners, but are emotionally involved in our own decision making.

    But ultimately, the process or decision making that we go through is according to our natures. In any given circumstance we will make whatever choice we will make because of how we, with the natures we have, respond to the circumstance we're in. When it comes to responding to God, our natures are sinful, and acting according to those natures we will always respond negatively to him. So, when we respond positively, it's because of a gracious act of God within us, changing our natures, and enabling us to do what was formerly contrary to our natures.

    Human decisions do not simply happen without cause, haphazardly. If they did, then they wouldn't truly be ours. Rather, they are caused by prior efficient causes that are inherent to our natures (natures which also came into existence because of other prior efficient causes), and for this reason, they are truly ours, and we are accountable for them.

  23. #590
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Robots actually have wills.
    Why do you believe that?

  24. #591
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Robots actually have wills. Robots just don't have free will. But robots most certainly have a will. You should go to a local university at sit in on advanced artificial intelligence seminars before making such an uninformed statement.

    Okay. Robots don't have "souls" but that's a distinction without a difference.

    To be really made in the likeness and image of God you have to have freewill because God has freewill.
    I'm not sure about free will. People just keep using that term. And I don't understand it.

    But if by "free will," you mean something that is compatible with all decisions being predetermined, then I don't object to it.

    Note that you say God has free will, but even with God, all his choices are predetermined by his nature. He will never make a choice that goes against his nature. Every choice he makes always has a 100% chance of being exactly whatever it is.

    So, whatever you mean by free will, it has to be compatible with that. This is why I prefer not to use that term.

    I don't see the soul issue as a distinction without a difference. It makes a big difference to me.

    Where did you get your definition of "image of God." Do any of the passages of the Bible that mention humans being made in God's image and likeness define it the way you do?

  25. #592
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Notice how you don't take up the challenge yourself and explain how they are the same. Why is that?
    Because it's patently obvious that they are the same. But let's look at your four distinctions:

    1. Robots don't have wills. But they do in the same sense that men have wills. What does it mean to have a will? If it means one can determine one's own actions, then under your view neither men nor robots have wills. If it means that one will perform certain actions that have been predetermined, then both men and robots have wills.

    2. Robots don't have souls. How do you know? God supposedly gave men souls just as a roboticist programmed his creation. One can analogize a robot's soul to its program, which will survive the physical destruction of the robot's body and CPU.

    3. A robot's not morally responsible for its actions. But neither is man if his actions have been predetermined. It is absurd to claim that one is morally responsible for doing something that one had absolutely no control over. If I were to tie you up, place a gun in your hand, and pull the trigger with your finger resulting in someone's death, would you be morally responsible? Of course not. So if man, like a robot, can do only what God has predetermined then the concept of moral responsibility doesn't apply. To use the analogy from Romans that S-F continually cites, it's as if you were to accuse a pot for being morally irresponsible because it cracked after the potter left it in the kiln too long.

    4. A robot's not made in the image of God. Yes, it can be. If I build a robot in my image and I was created in God's image, it follows that the robot is created in God's image. Incidentally, if man was made in God's image and if God predetermined that man would sin, what does this say about God's image?
    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



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #593
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Why do you believe that?
    Because I have actually taken advanced courses in artificial intelligence and apparently you have not.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  28. #594
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Here is what dictionary.com has for the word "robot."


    I think the definition that people here are trying to use is the second one.

    I would say that we are not robots by that definition because we are subject to our own wills, and the way God works through us does not bypass our wills, but uses them. We do not respond in mechanical, routine manners, but are emotionally involved in our own decision making.

    But ultimately, the process or decision making that we go through is according to our natures. In any given circumstance we will make whatever choice we will make because of how we, with the natures we have, respond to the circumstance we're in. When it comes to responding to God, our natures are sinful, and acting according to those natures we will always respond negatively to him. So, when we respond positively, it's because of a gracious act of God within us, changing our natures, and enabling us to do what was formerly contrary to our natures.

    Human decisions do not simply happen without cause, haphazardly. If they did, then they wouldn't truly be ours. Rather, they are caused by prior efficient causes that are inherent to our natures (natures which also came into existence because of other prior efficient causes), and for this reason, they are truly ours, and we are accountable for them.
    Please read and enlighten yourself as to the original meaning of the word "robot".

    http://www.npr.org/2011/04/22/135634...the-word-robot
    Science Diction: The Origin Of The Word 'Robot'

    April 22, 20111:00 PM ET
    Robot is a relative newcomer to the English language. It was the brainchild of the Czech playwright, novelist and journalist Karel Čapek, who introduced it in his 1920 hit play, R.U.R., or Rossum's Universal Robots. Science historian Howard Markel discusses how Čapek thought up the word.

    IRA FLATOW, host:

    That means it's time for our monthly, well, sort of Science Diction, as we call it. We're exploring the origins of scientific words with Howard Markel, professor of history of the history of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, also a director at the center for history of medicine there.

    Welcome back to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Howard.

    Professor HOWARD MARKEL (University of Michigan): Hi, Ira. Happy Earth Day.

    FLATOW: Happy Earth Day to you. Have you got a - what's the word - the good word for today?

    Prof. MARKEL: Well, the good word today is robot.

    FLATOW: Robot.

    Prof. MARKEL: Yeah.

    FLATOW: Robot. What is the origin of the word robot? Interesting.

    Prof. MARKEL: Well, you know, we all think of these mechanical beings, you know, clad in metal with its blinking lights and making all sorts of funny sounds. And even some people think about modern robots, which help in modern engineering or even the conduct of surgery. But it's really a new word to the English language.

    It was the brainchild of a wonderful Czech playwright, novelist and journalist named Karel Capek. He lived from 1880 to 1938. And he introduced it in 1920 in his hit play "RUR," or "Rossum's Universal Robots."

    FLATOW: Does it have a Latin origin, or just - he just made it up out of thin air?

    Prof. MARKEL: Well, it comes from an Old Church Slavonic word, rabota, which means servitude of forced labor. The word also has cognates in German, Russian, Polish and Czech. And it's really a product of Central European system of serfdom, where a tenants' rent was paid for in forced labor or service.

    And he was writing this play about a company, Rossum's Universal Robots, that was actually using biotechnology. They were mass-producing workers using the latest biology, chemistry and physiology to produce workers who lack nothing but a soul. They couldn't love. They couldn't have feelings. But they could do all the works that humans preferred not to do. And, of course, the company was soon inundated with our orders.

    Well, when Capek named these creatures, he first came up with a Latin word labori, for labor. But he worried that it sounded a little bit too bookish, and at the suggestion of his brother, Josef, Capek ultimately opted for roboti, or in English, robots.

    FLATOW: Wow. And so he needed this for the play.

    Prof. MARKEL: Yeah. And, you know, the robots - it's really a wonderful play. The robots do so well, they really kind of take over Earth. I mean, they take over the army. They take over all the work. Even human women can no longer reproduce because they've forgotten how. And so, the robots, after a while, say, hey, enough of this. We're going to take over the world. We're doing all the work. So it's sort of an allegory for a mass revolt of the workers unite and things get really bad. And all but one human being is killed in this play.

    FLATOW: Wow.

    Prof. MARKEL: The robots realize, oh, no. We've killed everybody who knows how to make robots. So they've actually guaranteed their extinction. And then there's this magical moment where two robots, a male and a female robot, suddenly developed the ability to feel, to love and have human emotions, and they go off into the sunset to make the world anew.

    (Soundbite of laughter)

    FLATOW: Wow. I could the sun's dawning already.

    Prof. MARKEL: Yes, it is.

    (Soundbite of laughter)

    FLATOW: So it actually had a negative term in the play to begin with, then it sort of got redeemed toward the end.

    Prof. MARKEL: Yeah. And, you know, Capek was a very interesting man, an interesting journalist and philosopher. He had - he was a democrat with a little D. He believed in democracy. And, you know, when he wrote this in 1920, there was the - the Soviet Union had started recently with communism, and there was also the World War I that had many people blamed on capitalism and...

    FLATOW: Well, wasn't he also on Hitler's most-wanted list?

    Prof. MARKEL: He was, indeed. And he was a very active opponent of Hitler, and wrote about it. And he was enemy number two on the Gestapo list. And he died in 1938 at the age of 48 of flu, just a few moments before the Gestapo had caught up with him. So he frustrated Hitler (unintelligible).

    FLATOW: Oh, okay. Well, this is fascinating. Thank you very much.

    Prof. MARKEL: Well, thank you.

    FLATOW: And, Howard, we'll look forward to your next word. I know you've been thinking about it with great, robotic detail.

    (Soundbite of laughter)

    Prof. MARKEL: I hope so.

    FLATOW: All right. Thank you, Howard.

    Howard Markel is professor of the history of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and director of the Center for the History of Medicine there.

    We've run out of time for this hour.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  29. #595
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Because I have actually taken advanced courses in artificial intelligence and apparently you have not.
    No. I haven't. Can you give your reason for believing robots have wills though?

    I am familiar with Searle's Chinese Room experiment, and to my mind it does a good job of illustrating the difference between computers and human minds, and there's no distinction between simple will and free will brought up.
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

  30. #596
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Please read and enlighten yourself as to the original meaning of the word "robot".

    http://www.npr.org/2011/04/22/135634...the-word-robot
    Science Diction: The Origin Of The Word 'Robot'

    April 22, 20111:00 PM ET
    Robot is a relative newcomer to the English language. It was the brainchild of the Czech playwright, novelist and journalist Karel Čapek, who introduced it in his 1920 hit play, R.U.R., or Rossum's Universal Robots. Science historian Howard Markel discusses how Čapek thought up the word.

    IRA FLATOW, host:

    That means it's time for our monthly, well, sort of Science Diction, as we call it. We're exploring the origins of scientific words with Howard Markel, professor of history of the history of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, also a director at the center for history of medicine there.

    Welcome back to SCIENCE FRIDAY, Howard.

    Professor HOWARD MARKEL (University of Michigan): Hi, Ira. Happy Earth Day.

    FLATOW: Happy Earth Day to you. Have you got a - what's the word - the good word for today?

    Prof. MARKEL: Well, the good word today is robot.

    FLATOW: Robot.

    Prof. MARKEL: Yeah.

    FLATOW: Robot. What is the origin of the word robot? Interesting.

    Prof. MARKEL: Well, you know, we all think of these mechanical beings, you know, clad in metal with its blinking lights and making all sorts of funny sounds. And even some people think about modern robots, which help in modern engineering or even the conduct of surgery. But it's really a new word to the English language.

    It was the brainchild of a wonderful Czech playwright, novelist and journalist named Karel Capek. He lived from 1880 to 1938. And he introduced it in 1920 in his hit play "RUR," or "Rossum's Universal Robots."

    FLATOW: Does it have a Latin origin, or just - he just made it up out of thin air?

    Prof. MARKEL: Well, it comes from an Old Church Slavonic word, rabota, which means servitude of forced labor. The word also has cognates in German, Russian, Polish and Czech. And it's really a product of Central European system of serfdom, where a tenants' rent was paid for in forced labor or service.

    And he was writing this play about a company, Rossum's Universal Robots, that was actually using biotechnology. They were mass-producing workers using the latest biology, chemistry and physiology to produce workers who lack nothing but a soul. They couldn't love. They couldn't have feelings. But they could do all the works that humans preferred not to do. And, of course, the company was soon inundated with our orders.

    Well, when Capek named these creatures, he first came up with a Latin word labori, for labor. But he worried that it sounded a little bit too bookish, and at the suggestion of his brother, Josef, Capek ultimately opted for roboti, or in English, robots.

    FLATOW: Wow. And so he needed this for the play.

    Prof. MARKEL: Yeah. And, you know, the robots - it's really a wonderful play. The robots do so well, they really kind of take over Earth. I mean, they take over the army. They take over all the work. Even human women can no longer reproduce because they've forgotten how. And so, the robots, after a while, say, hey, enough of this. We're going to take over the world. We're doing all the work. So it's sort of an allegory for a mass revolt of the workers unite and things get really bad. And all but one human being is killed in this play.

    FLATOW: Wow.

    Prof. MARKEL: The robots realize, oh, no. We've killed everybody who knows how to make robots. So they've actually guaranteed their extinction. And then there's this magical moment where two robots, a male and a female robot, suddenly developed the ability to feel, to love and have human emotions, and they go off into the sunset to make the world anew.

    (Soundbite of laughter)

    FLATOW: Wow. I could the sun's dawning already.

    Prof. MARKEL: Yes, it is.

    (Soundbite of laughter)

    FLATOW: So it actually had a negative term in the play to begin with, then it sort of got redeemed toward the end.

    Prof. MARKEL: Yeah. And, you know, Capek was a very interesting man, an interesting journalist and philosopher. He had - he was a democrat with a little D. He believed in democracy. And, you know, when he wrote this in 1920, there was the - the Soviet Union had started recently with communism, and there was also the World War I that had many people blamed on capitalism and...

    FLATOW: Well, wasn't he also on Hitler's most-wanted list?

    Prof. MARKEL: He was, indeed. And he was a very active opponent of Hitler, and wrote about it. And he was enemy number two on the Gestapo list. And he died in 1938 at the age of 48 of flu, just a few moments before the Gestapo had caught up with him. So he frustrated Hitler (unintelligible).

    FLATOW: Oh, okay. Well, this is fascinating. Thank you very much.

    Prof. MARKEL: Well, thank you.

    FLATOW: And, Howard, we'll look forward to your next word. I know you've been thinking about it with great, robotic detail.

    (Soundbite of laughter)

    Prof. MARKEL: I hope so.

    FLATOW: All right. Thank you, Howard.

    Howard Markel is professor of the history of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and director of the Center for the History of Medicine there.

    We've run out of time for this hour.
    Great post.

    This illustrates very well how there's nothing about belief in determinism that makes human beings (or God) into robots. By the definition of robot used in that dialogue, robots don't love or feel. Well, humans do, whether determinism is true or not.

    Thank you for showing how nothing I have said makes people into robots.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 12-15-2016 at 12:34 PM.

  31. #597
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Because it's patently obvious that they are the same. But let's look at your four distinctions:
    It's not at all obvious to me. And it's telling that those who claim it is obvious are unable to prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    1. Robots don't have wills. But they do in the same sense that men have wills. What does it mean to have a will? If it means one can determine one's own actions, then under your view neither men nor robots have wills. If it means that one will perform certain actions that have been predetermined, then both men and robots have wills.
    You are incorrect. Under my view humans do have wills, according to the definition you provided. Determinism doesn't change that.

    Since you agree that robots do not, this is still a valid distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    2. Robots don't have souls. How do you know? God supposedly gave men souls just as a roboticist programmed his creation. One can analogize a robot's soul to its program, which will survive the physical destruction of the robot's body and CPU.
    But that's just an analogy, not the thing itself. The question of whether or not people have souls is separate from the question of whether or not those souls survivve after physical death. So this distinction is still valid too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    3. A robot's not morally responsible for its actions. [I]But neither is man if his actions have been predetermined.
    This is incorrect. By my view, man's decisions are predetermined, and man is still morally responsible for them

    As a matter of fact, if decisions were not predetermined, and just happened without cause, rather than truly belonging to the person who performed the action in accordance with his own nature, then that would negate human responsibility. In order for moral responsibility for actions to exist, determinism has to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It is absurd to claim that one is morally responsible for doing something that one had absolutely no control over.
    First of all, that's not absurd. We are morally responsible for Adam's sin even though we have no control over his committing it.

    Second of all, that's not my claim anyway. With respect to our own sins, for which we are morally responsible, we do have control over them. Our control over them is within the chain of causation that results in them, but is not the ultimate cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    If I were to tie you up, place a gun in your hand, and pull the trigger with your finger resulting in someone's death, would you be morally responsible? Of course not.
    I agree. And that is a good illustration of what belief in determinism is not. When I talk about someone's choices being predetermined, I am including their own wills within that. I do not mean that they are forced to do anything against their wills.

    Even in the case of salvation, when God changes someone's heart to grant them saving faith, contrary to their sinful natures, it isn't by forcing them against their wills, but by changing their wills.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    4. A robot's not made in the image of God. Yes, it can be. If I build a robot in my image and I was created in God's image, it follows that the robot is created in God's image. Incidentally, if man was made in God's image and if God predetermined that man would sin, what does this say about God's image?
    No. That doesn't follow. You are not capable of making a robot in your own image, complete will all the things that make you a creature made in God's image.

  32. #598
    In light of your post, @Sonny Tufts, I'd have to say that all four of my distinctions still hold.

    From the article jmdrake just posted, we should also add emotions. Since humans have emotions, whether determinism is true or not, that makes us different from robots, according to the original sense of that word.

    Interestingly, since God is impassible, he would more closely match that definition of robot than human beings do.

  33. #599
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    Under my view humans do have wills, according to the definition you provided. Determinism doesn't change that.
    If all is predetermined, it is impossible for someone to determine his own actions because those actions have already been determined for him by God. A robot can "determine" its own actions by simply following the program that has been planted in it, and this is no different than man "determining" to act in a manner that has been programmed into him. You see, you, S-F, and others who posit God's absolute primacy and deny the notion of free will cannot abide the idea that man can decide something on his own, because that would mean there are things that man does that God hasn't predetermined (leaving aside the possibility, which you would never entertain, that perhaps God in His infinite wisdom decided to give man free will and not predetermine everything).

    By my view, man's decisions are predetermined, and man is still morally responsible for them

    As a matter of fact, if decisions were not predetermined, and just happened without cause, rather than truly belonging to the person who performed the action in accordance with his own nature, then that would negate human responsibility. In order for moral responsibility for actions to exist, determinism has to be true.
    You have a strange sense of responsibility. And you seem to forget that under your view it was God who gave man his nature, so why should God get angry (see various references in the OT) or condemn people for acting in accordance with the nature He gave them?

    First of all, that's not absurd. We are morally responsible for Adam's sin even though we have no control over his committing it.
    Well, you and I depart there; I don't accept the notion of Original Sin.

    Second of all, that's not my claim anyway. With respect to our own sins, for which we are morally responsible, we do have control over them. Our control over them is within the chain of causation that results in them, but is not the ultimate cause.
    What control? If it was predetermined someone would sin and if he could not possibly have acted in any other way, how did he have control?

    I agree. And that is a good illustration of what belief in determinism is not. When I talk about someone's choices being predetermined, I am including their own wills within that. I do not mean that they are forced to do anything against their wills.
    But according to you they are forced to have the kind of will God gave them and are forced to perform the acts God has predetermined. In reality, they have no will.
    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

  34. #600
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    If all is predetermined, it is impossible for someone to determine his own actions because those actions have already been determined for him by God.
    This is just false. People keep saying it. But once you take away this premise, your whole argument collapses. My actions are determined by me, and by every prior cause that leads me to make them, ultimately going back to the one uncaused first cause. It's not either/or.

    In fact, in order for it to be true that I cause my actions, it must be true that there exists such an "I" to cause them. Thus, my actions must be caused be me being me, acting according to the nature that defines me as this "I." So in order for me to cause my actions, determinism must be true.

    If, on the other hand, my choices just happen haphazard, without cause, then necessarily I am not the cause of them, since nothing is the cause of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    A robot can "determine" its own actions by simply following the program that has been planted in it, and this is no different than man "determining" to act in a manner that has been programmed into him.
    Again, this is just an assertion. I don't buy it. You're just clinging to your view and refusing to look at things a different way. But there's no necessity to say that a human being predetermined in his choices is no different than a robot being preprogrammed in what it does.

    Robots do not have consciousness. See the chinese room experiment I linked to above.

    There is more to the difference between people and robots than the predermination of their actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You see, you, S-F, and others who posit God's absolute primacy and deny the notion of free will cannot abide the idea that man can decide something on his own, because that would mean there are things that man does that God hasn't predetermined (leaving aside the possibility, which you would never entertain, that perhaps God in His infinite wisdom decided to give man free will and not predetermine everything).
    I don't deny the notion of free will. I only deny any version of the notion of free will that is incompatible with determinism. But as long as determinism is true, if someone holds to a concept of free will that is compatible with that (such as you can see in the quote I provided above from John Cassian), then I don't discount that.

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You have a strange sense of responsibility.
    It's really not that strange at all if you read the literature on free will and determinism. And it's certainly not strange in Christian theology over the course of all of Church history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    What control? If it was predetermined someone would sin and if he could not possibly have acted in any other way, how did he have control?
    Being predestined to do something doesn't mean that it's not within the person's control. That very control over the action by that person is part of God's means in accomplishing it.

    Just because someone is 100% likely to do something doesn't mean that they aren't the ones doing it, or that they aren't morally responsible for it, or that it's not under their control.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    But according to you they are forced to have the kind of will God gave them and are forced to perform the acts God has predetermined. In reality, they have no will.
    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.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 12-15-2016 at 01:17 PM.



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Saint Or Sinner, Government Eyes Are Watching Every Move You Make
    By Suzanimal in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-23-2016, 09:40 AM
  2. State Trooper: "Admit You Are a Sinner"
    By presence in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 10-26-2014, 09:35 AM
  3. Lew Rockwell .com Accepts BTC
    By FSP-Rebel in forum Bitcoin / Cryptocurrencies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2013, 10:31 AM
  4. reddit now accepts Bitcoin
    By muh_roads in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-17-2013, 05:56 PM
  5. Iran accepts gold for gas
    By cubical in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-24-2012, 12:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •