Compatibilists are those who believe that freedom and determinism are compatible with each other. On their view, one is free so long as they make actual choices. And they maintain that people do make actual choices: They choose what they desire. Of course, the problem comes when you ask where those desires come from. The desires are determined by God or physics. So what if physics or God determined for you to desire to kill your roommate? Then you will “choose” to kill your roommate.
In my estimation, this is not a very robust sense of freedom. Indeed, I would argue that it is not freedom at all. If desires cause actions, but the desires are determined by something other than the self, then the actions are determined as well, even if only in a secondary or intermediate sense. More could be said in the way of critique, but I have done so elsewhere.
For this post, I just want to pose a simple question to compatibilists: If our choices are caused by our desires, are our desires are determined by God/physics, then why is “choosing” so hard? Why do we struggle with deliberation? The only reason we experience deliberation is because we possess conflicting desires and we need to weigh them to decide which desire to act on. If our desires are determined, does that mean God (or physics) determined for us to have conflicting desires? If so, what would the purpose be other than to give us the false appearance of having libertarian free will?
Thinking to Believe 
September 21, 2015 at 9:15 am
Free Will is an Illusion that believers cannot accept because then they could not then account for evil which is how the argument inevitably goes when we talk about actions-free will-behavior but free will cannot explain natural disaster evils like earthquakes, tsunamis, lightening strikes, wildfires, avalanches; on the other hand, natural phenomena is only considered evil if human life is affected adversely by it.
We never worry or think much about the insect lives that are mulched when we mow our lawns to cut the grass. the bug splats on our cars as we drive along the roadways.
Babies do not have any more free will to pick the womb to be birthed from than they do in choosing the country or family or caste system to be birthed into…..when then does free will begin for you humans who believe in free will?
Human Beings are products, not of choice but of chance; choice is an anomaly that tries to explain chance behavior, it is not that chance is an anomaly that tries to explain choice behavior; that’s the Illusion of Free Will human delusion invents and fosters the imaginations of men to exempt or justify as was the Divine Rights of Kings not so very long ago.
The divine right of kings or divine right is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The remote origins of the theory are rooted in the medieval idea that God had bestowed earthly power on the king, just as God had given spiritual power and authority to the church, centering on the pope.
Even Jesus espoused this divinity when he told Pontius Pilate that his authority as Roman governor of Judaea came from heaven according to John 19:10–11.
Romans, chapter 13 begins in this way:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.
So what the Apostle Paul is saying in the letter to the Romans is that there are two types of authority for human beings. On the one hand, human beings are to be subject to God. On the other hand, they are also bound to obey kings and rulers, because these are seen as being set in place by God. This is, again, grounded on ideas in the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). The book of the prophet Daniel states that God ‘removes kings and sets them up,’ which makes it clear that the deity has a hand in who rules in government (Daniel 2.21)
In due course, opposition to the divine right of kings came from a number of sources, including Thomas Jefferson’s formulation in the United States Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal”.
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 2:08 pm
As to repentance and salvation Jesus says, ” No I say to you but if you do not repent you all will likewise perish.”
Perish is: utterly destroyed. This word means loss of well being not extinction of being. It is middle voice. This means the subject is acting with reference to self or initiating an action towards or upon themselves. Ex. He dressed himself-middle voice.
If one does not repent they bring themselves into (eternal) destruction. It is solely on them to repent- if they don’t they CAUSE THEMSELVES (their soul)to go into eternal punishment. It doesn’t matter as to the means of their death only that they are the cause of their own destruction (middle voice).
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 2:12 pm
Can’t edit -Luke 13:1-5 above post. Jesus repeated’ repent or you will perish’ twice. He repeated Himself 500 times in the Gospels.
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 6:08 pm
Jason,
Though I have not noticed you saying so, your perspective often seems to be Neo Calvinist. Maybe this post points otherwise. Here is my perspective: The Calvin and the Armenian persuasions are both wrong. The truth is Universalism and Open Theism.
You will not agree with the above because you think both are proved false by Scripture, however, they are not false, and Scripture, in fact, strongly supports both. And, please do not simply dismiss what I am saying, there are extremely intelligent and educated people who agree.
Consider this: We have free will. Radical free will. The future is truly fluid. God can and does on occasion intervene, but often he lets us create the future. To say that God has given us actual free will and that He does not know exactly what we will do does not lessen his sovereignty. It greatly magnifies His glory and sovereignty.
Randy
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 6:17 pm
Son of man,
You said,
“Free Will is an Illusion that believers cannot accept because then they could not then account for evil…”
You have made a similar comment before. You are exactly right when you throw that charge at most Christians. But you are 100% wrong if you think it is a charge against all Christians.
There are Christians who can logically explain evil and still believe in an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God. The two concepts are absolutely not logically exclusive. If you care to understand what I am saying, read Alvin Plantinga.
Randy
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 6:36 pm
To start, let me be clear that I believe in perfect determinism. There are no uncaused effects. I believe by my own choice that quantum indeterminism is merely an inability to predict due to a lack of information rather than any absence of causation.
Causation presents no problem at all to free will. In fact, if the will is to be meaningful, it must have the ability to implement its intent, that is, to reliably cause effects. Therefore reliable cause and effect (determinism) is a prerequisite for free will.
Within a deterministic universe, we present as purposeful biological organism. We come with a biological “will” to survive. We need food, water, tolerable temperature, etc. And we also come with an evolved neurological system that allows us to learn, experiment, plan, imagine alternatives, and choose for ourselves what we will do next.
This choosing is a deterministic process of reducing multiple options into a single choice that we can act upon.
And this choosing takes place in physical reality. There is no “illusion” of choosing. At the beginning we have in mind several options. At the end we have made a choice.
And it is authentically us, the evolved biological organisms, that are in fact making these choices. Without us, and our mental process of choosing, no choices are made. Without our mind and our muscle, the choice never happens. All of the prior causes are impotent without us. We are the final responsible cause of what directly results from our actions.
If we are free to make the choice for ourselves, then our will is free. If someone else makes the choice for us and forces us to choose or act against our own will, then our will is not free. That is the meaning of free will.
Every choice that we make of our own free will is also inevitable. Both autonomy and inevitability are true in every decision we make for ourselves.
After all, we choose using our own reasons and feelings, our own beliefs and values, our own genetic disposition, and our own life experiences. Given who we are at the time of our decision, our choice will be both our own and the inevitable result of us.
Of these two facts, free will and inevitability, the least important is inevitability. Because causation is everywhere and in everything, inevitability is ubiquitous. It is like a constant that appears on both sides of every equation. And this makes it a useless consideration in all practical situations.
Those trying to make something out of inevitability usually end up making mental errors that lead to fallacious results.
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 6:39 pm
Dr. H. Davis,
Have you studied the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated “eternal?” The Hebrew “olam” (Strong’s 5769) means, essentially, “long duration” and the Greek “aionios” means “age long.”
They were poorly translated by the King James crowd, and that influence, along with some scholars from about the 4th century on (Augustine, etc.) have held sway to this day.
The result is that much of Christianity believes that an all loving God would send most of His creatures into a blast furnace for all eternity. Really? Think about how illogical is that belief. It is completely without logical consistency, and it is wrong. Jesus came to save the world. God’s will is that all men will be saved. He sent Jesus to accomplish His will. God almighty will not be partially defeated.
Randy
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 6:45 pm
P.S. Determinism does not rely upon a physical world. It is a characteristic of a rational world. Any being that operates according to purpose and reason will operate deterministically according to that purpose and those reasons. I presume this would also apply to God.
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 8:24 pm
Randy:
“Christians who can logically explain evil and still believe in an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God.” Is an oxymoron.
There are two trains of thought Plantinga uses: One in his Book The Nature of Necessity, 1974: Natural Evil pp 191-193, which is the line of thought used by St Augustine to explain natural evil: That Satan, a non human, rebelled against God, was cast out of heaven (Kind of makes you think about the mythological Gods of old) and has been wreaking havoc of natural evil in the natural world ever since through the existence of natural evils like deadly viruses and natural disasters.
How would my free will be compromised if tomorrow God completely eliminated cancer from the face of the Earth? Do people really need to die from heart disease and flash floods in order for us to have morally significant free will? It is difficult to see that they do. So, the objection goes, even if Plantinga’s Free Will Defense explains why God allows moral evil, it does not explain why he allows natural evil.
Plantinga, however, thinks that his Free Will Defense can be used to solve the logical problem of evil as it pertains to natural evil. Here is a possible reason God might have for allowing natural evil:
Plantinga’s second line of thought is noted:
“(MSR2) God allowed natural evil to enter the world as part of Adam and Eve’s punishment for their sin in the Garden of Eden. The sin of Adam and Eve was a moral evil. (MSR2) claims that all natural evil followed as the result of the world’s first moral evil. So, if it is plausible to think that Plantinga’s Free Will Defense solves the logical problem of evil as it pertains to moral evil, the current suggestion is that it is plausible also to think that it solves the logical problem of evil as it pertains to natural evil because all of the worlds evils have their source in moral evil.
(MSR2) represents a common Jewish and Christian response to the challenge posed by natural evil. Death, disease, pain and even the tiresome labor involved in gleaning food from the soil came into the world as a direct result of Adam and Eve’s sin. The emotional pain of separation, shame and broken relationships are also consequences that first instance of moral evil. In fact, according to the first chapter of Genesis, animals in the Garden of Eden didn’t even kill each other for food before the Fall. In the description of the sixth day of creation God says to Adam and Eve,
I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. (Gen. 1:29-30, NIV)
In other words, the Garden of Eden is pictured as a peaceful, vegetarian commune until moral evil entered the world and brought natural evil with it. Some might think that (MSR2) is simply too far-fetched to be taken seriously. I am one of those “Some”.
Natural disasters, it will be said, bear no essential connection to human wrongdoing, so it is absurd to think that moral evil could somehow bring natural evil into the world. Moreover, (MSR2) would have us believe that there were real persons named Adam and Eve and that they actually performed the misdeeds attributed to them in the book of Genesis. (MSR2) seems to be asking Theists to believe by the billions what only lunatics would believe on their own.
This was the same line of reasoning that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson used to pin the blame of 9/11 on the immorality of sinners’ Free Will run amuck!
‘God Will Not Be Mocked’
The comments came as Falwell was appearing as a guest on Robertson’s daily 700 Club program. Both expressed their sorrow and outrage over the attacks and advocated a strong response to the terror. Then Falwell elaborated on who, in addition to the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks, was responsible for them.
God, he told Robertson, had protected America “wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we’ve been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results.
“Throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools,” he said. “The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad.
“[T]he pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America,” Falwell continued, “I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.'”
“Well, I totally concur,” responded Robertson.
The implausibility of (MSR2) is taken by some to be a serious defect. This is the dilemma of the Illusional of the Delusional and if you believe this, Randy, you are caught up in that delusion.
So I have read Alvin Plantinga and I suggest that you now read Sam Harris on Free Will from an excerpt that follows for a well rounded world view of myth, madness and made-ups in my next Posting.
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 8:24 pm
Son of Man, the lack of free will on your part explains a lot. 🙂
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 8:26 pm
There is a difference between a reason and a cause. While physical objects work in deterministic patterns of cause and effect, agents do not. Agents may act for reasons, and there are clearly influences on agents that affect their range of choices, but agents have free will.
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 8:28 pm
Randy, you are right that I am not going to accept Universalism and Open Theism. I understand that there are intelligent people who hold to these positions, but I think their philosophical, theological, and exegetical case is weak. But this post is not to debate such things. I just want to hear from compatibilists why humans deliberate, and why deliberation can be so difficult, if our desires are determined.
Jason
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 8:36 pm
Randy:
Our urge for retribution is actually an artifact of our not seeing the true causes of human behavior. God’s justice is purely a matter of retribution. Religions like Christianity and Islam entirely depend on this notion of free will. This is the only answer they have given to the problem of evil. As in why would a good God allow Nazis to kill millions of innocent people? God and all his omnipotent goodness couldn’t intervene because people have free will. This the usual line.
Now obviously this doesn’t cover all the other mayhem born of tsunamis, epidemics but this is the best that religious people have to justify the otherwise psychopathic morality of God. And free will is also what makes sense of this idea of sin. Religions tell us that sin is what justifies eternal punishment in the next life. So that’s why to my mind the mother of all cultural war issues. This is where science really pulls the keystone out of religion.
Recall the general picture; we’ve all inherited the original sin because of the act of Adam and Eve’s misuse of their free will. And then for eons God gave us no guidance whatsoever. And then he wrote a few uneven books, that were filled with rumours of ancient miracles, and then he holds us responsible for the slightest doubt about his existence on the basis of these books. Though he has stacked the deck against us by giving us the faculty of reason and strangely the ability to write better books than he has supposedly written.
And we are deemed the ultimate source of our turning away from him. By our own free will we are the cause of our doubts. I am the self sufficient cause of my lack of faith. Now again this is not only untrue it seems impossible to describe a universe in which it could be true. Beliefs are the product of prior causes. Either determined or random and there’s no way of turning those dials that gets you standing on the hotspot where you are the ultimate cause of your beliefs.
So without free will this actually does; the worldview of monotheistic religion, this idea of God’s eternal justice stands revealed for what it is. A completely sadistic and insane view of the world. And ironically one of the fears that religious people have, that you hear about over and over again is that a complete understanding of us in scientific terms would dehumanize us. Rather I think it humanizes us.
What could be more dehumanizing than the view that most of the people, most of the time by virtue of the fact that they were born in the wrong place, to the wrong parents, given the wrong theology, exposed to the wrong intellectual influences, were nevertheless crucially responsible for the fact they didn’t believe in God or believed in the wrong God and therefore as a result deserve to be burned in fire for eternity.
So to conclude, I just want to bring us back to our direct experience consciousness of this moment. Now it’s generally argued that free will presents us with this compelling mystery, on the one hand we know we got it on the other we can’t seem to map it onto the world.
Again I think this is a sign of our confusion. The problem is not merely that free will doesn’t make sense objectively, it doesn’t make sense subjectively either. Not only are we not as free as we think we are, we don’t feel as free as we think we do so in my view the illusion of free will is itself an illusion. There is no illusion of free will. Thoughts and intentions simply arise in the mind, what else could they do? Now some of you may think this sounds very depressing; it seems to take something away from us; it does. It takes away the egocentric view of life. But I think this can be tremendously liberating. We are not truly separate; we are linked to each other and to our past and to history. We are part of a system and what we do matters. You can’t take credit for your talents, but it matters that you use them.
You really can’t be blamed for your weaknesses but it matters that you correct them. So pride and shame don’t make a lot of sense in the final analyses but they weren’t much fun anyway.
These are isolated emotions. What does make sense is a commitment to well being. To the improving of your life and the lives of others. Love and compassion make sense. And nothing I’ve said reduces the value of political freedom or social freedom. But the idea that we, as conscious beings, are deeply responsible for the character of our own minds is just as impossible to map onto reality and if we want to be guided by reality rather than the fantasy life of our ancestors I think our views on this topic have to change. sharris
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 8:43 pm
Randy:
How do thoughts come into our consciousness? Do you think you have free will that determines what you will think about next? You would have to think about what you will think about in order for you to freely choose to think about what thoughts come into your head at any moment.
Thoughts like red blood cells are being made in the body and you have absolutely no control over the thoughts or over the production of red blood cells. You have some sense of control over acting on the thought when it comes but certainly not before it comes. Thoughts are randomly encountered. Right now I think I will look for something to eat.
So goodbye and take care.
Here are some clever lines to think about.
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 8:50 pm
Cute Jason, cute. :;
You made me smile but I don’t know why really? Perhaps it was the smiley face?
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 8:51 pm
: )
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 8:59 pm
I am deliberating right now whether to add a comment to this post…:)
I just did !
Naz
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 9:00 pm
Or did I ?
😦
Naz
LikeLike
September 21, 2015 at 10:05 pm
Jason:
Everything you are consciously aware of, in every moment is the result of causes of which you are not aware and over which you exert no conscious control. So how can we be free, as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by things we did not intend? And of which we are entirely unaware? We can’t. We can’t choose what we choose in life. And when it seems that we choose what we choose like when we perhaps go back and forth about two options, we don’t choose to choose what we choose. There’s a regress here that ends in darkness.
Yes you’re free to do whatever you want but where do your desires come from? The next choice you make is going to come out of a wilderness of prior causes which you can’t see and didn’t bring into being.
Where is the freedom in doing what one wants, when one’s wants are the product of prior causes which one cannot inspect and therefore could not choose and one that one had absolutely no hand in creating? And what I am going to do next remains a mystery that is fully determined by a prior state of the universe.
From the perspective of your conscious mind you are no more responsible for your next thought than you are for your birth into this world. You have not built your mind. And in moments where you seem to build it you where you finally take the reins of your life and you decide to acquire knowledge or learn a new skill the only tools at your disposal are those which you have inherited from the past. No one picks their parents or the society to which they are born, no one picks the moment in history in which they live, no one picks their genes or the environmental influences that determines the structure of their brain, no one determines how their nervous system gets shaped, from the moment of conception onward, you physical development is something you had no hand in. You didn’t pick any of the influences that shaped your neuro-physiology. You didn’t pick you soul, if you have one. And yet this totality of influences and states will be the thing that produces you next decision.
Just think of the context in which you are going to make your next decision. Your brain is making choices, based upon beliefs and intentions and states that have been hammered into it over a lifetime.
Your are no more responsible for the exact structure and state of your brain in this moment than you are for your height. What you do based on conscious predetermined decisions says more about you than anything else. Thoughts simply arise in the mind. But the idea that we as human beings are deeply responsible for the characters of our minds simply can’t be mapped onto reality and if we want to be guided by reality rather than by the fantasy lines of our ancestors I think we have to revise our views.
Free will is worse than an illusion. It is totally an incoherent idea. Which is to say that it is impossible to describe the universe in which it could be true. Not only is it untrue, it’s heard to even make sense of what may have been claimed to be true. And understanding this truth about the human mind actually matters. And it can change the way we view morality and questions of justice.
The popular conception of ‘free will’ seems to rest on two assumptions: the first is that each of us was free to behave differently than we did in the past; you chose chocolate but you could have chosen vanilla. It certainly seems like this is the world we’re living in. The second assumption is that we are the conscious source of our thoughts and actions. So your experience of wanting to do something is in fact the proximate cause of you doing that something. You feel that you want to move …and you move. You are doing it., you, the conscious witness of your life. Now unfortunately we know that both of these assumptions are just untrue.
The problem is that we live in a world of cause and effect and there’s no way of thinking about cause and effect that allows us to say that the buck stops here. The buck never stops. Either our wills are determined by prior causes or a long chain of prior causes, and “we’re not responsible for them,”
Or they’re the product of chance and we’re not responsible for them, or there’s some combination of chance and determinism, but no combination seems to give you the free will that people cherish.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 4:08 am
Reasons are causes. Otherwise events are unreasonable, irrational, and logically impossible to deal with. If “God” is presumed to be a reasonable being, then it was some unfulfilled purpose that determined that he would create the universe. (And if “God” is irrational and chaotic then no promise is reliable).
Even if “God” somehow transcends purpose and reason, then he still must present himself to us, and our human minds, as purposeful and reasonable since we require it to make sense of things.
Throughout the Bible, God’s interventions are explained in terms of purpose and reasons.
From our perspective, God operates within logical causality, in a deterministic and therefore ultimately inevitable fashion.
However, God’s free will is still identical to our own. When he authentically chooses according to his own purposes and for his own reasons then his will is free — just like our own. The only difference would be that we have others who can force us to choose or act against our will, and He does not, for no other being exists that can force God to do anything against his will.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 4:10 am
I would not recommend Harris on Free Will. He’s pretty much all over the place. See my review at http://marvinedwards.me/2014/05/25/book-review-free-will-by-sam-harris/
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 4:57 am
SonofMan, I think you have several things wrong here.
First, Christianity teaches forgiveness and preaches against retribution (“vengeance is MINE saith the Lord”, and no one else’s). In the NT you’ll find Jesus advising you to forgive those who have wronged you if you wish to be forgiven yourself. Jesus even says to love your enemy, do good to those who hate you and persecute you. So this prejudice you’ve acquired against Christianity is not backed up by the facts. Attend a local Methodist church for a few Sundays and see what they are actually teaching.
Second, the issue of free will is separate and distinct from the issue of justice and penalty. A just penalty seeks first to repair the harm to the victim (if possible), correct and redeem the offender if feasible, and prevent further harm to society by restraining the offender until corrected. Any penalty that goes further than is reasonably required to accomplish these is unjustifiable.
This whole business of blaming retribution upon free will is a crock. In fact, rehabilitation is based upon the idea that a person has free will and can learn to make better decisions in the future. The goal of rehabilitation is a person who can once again operate autonomously as a good and law-abiding citizen.
Third, fifty years ago when I was majoring in Psych and taking psychology and sociology course, we learned of the influence of culture upon individual behavior. Science has long studied the causes of criminal behavior, and has never had to sacrifice free will to get to cause and effect.
Fourth, free will is nothing more and nothing less than a person’s ability to make one’s own choices. It is a meaningful and relevant concept that distinguishes autonomy (free will) from scenarios where we are forced by someone else to choose or act against our will (unfree, subordinated will).
Every choice we make of our own free will is also inevitable. Yep. Both autonomy and inevitability coexist in every decision that we make for ourselves.
The fact of autonomy is meaningful and relevant. The fact of inevitability, on the other hand, is pretty useless. Inevitability’s ubiquity makes it irrelevant in all practical situations. It is like a constant on both sides of every equation.
The criminal cannot claim inevitability as the excuse for his offense because the judge can also claim inevitability as the reason for his penalty (ANY penalty). Because it is so totally useless, and self-cancelling, the idea of inevitability seldom comes up at all.
Except of course in the “determinism versus free will” debate. And that debate is based in a simple fraud, where ordinary freedom is replaced by absolute freedom, which does not exist.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 5:08 am
SonofMan: “Do you think you have free will that determines what you will think about next?”
I can either finish this note or I can go fix myself some breakfast. It’s up to me.
And this fact of my freedom to make that choice is unaffected by the second fact that my choice will be derived deterministically and will be inevitable.
The inevitability is interesting, but totally useless. Unless someone can tell me at the outset what I will inevitably choose to do, then I must still figure it out for myself. Even if they could tell me, I would still need to make the choice before I could confirm their prediction.
The fact that it is authentically me, making the choice for myself, according to my own reasons and feelings, rather than my mother or my government or my church or a guy with a gun to my head making the decision for me, is very meaningful and relevant.
To say that the fact of inevitability somehow cancels out the fact of my autonomy is to preach fatalism. And I think you guys should really stop that, because it is not helpful.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 5:52 am
SonofMan: “So how can we be free, as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by things we did not intend?”
There are three impossible freedoms: freedom from causation, freedom from ourselves, and freedom from reality. Since these are imaginary, it is a bit silly to suggest we must have any of them before we can use the word “free”.
For example, I set the bird free from its cage.
Is the bird free from causation? No. If it actually were free from causation then flapping his wings would have no predictable effect. The bird’s real freedom relies upon its ability to cause flight by beating the air with its wings.
Is the bird free from itself? No. It is still the bird, with wings, feet, a beak, and a desire to have that berry it spots up in the tree.
Is the bird free from reality? No. If it was, then it would be dreaming, and may as well still be in the cage.
So, is the bird that I freed from the cage free or not? Well, yes. After all, he was in a cage and could only eat when I fed him. And now he is free to fly wherever he wants and eat what and when he chooses.
Free will works the same way. When I choose for myself I am acting of my own free will. When someone else makes my choices for me, or forces me to act against my will, then my will, like a bird in a cage, is subordinate to theirs and is not free.
Is my will free from causation? No. Without reliable cause and effect (determinism) I could never implement my intent. If the will cannot reliably cause any effect then it becomes meaningless and irrelevant.
Is my will free from myself? No. If it is not the result of my own reasons and feelings, my own beliefs and values, my own genetic dispositions, and my own life experiences, then it is no longer my will. To be free of those things is to no longer be me.
Is my will free from reality? No. If my will is free from reality then it is no longer a will, but only a wish.
So, let’s stop all this nonsense about freedom from causation, freedom from oneself, and freedom from reality. In order to be meaningful and relevant, the will needs only be free of a single significant constraint. And that single constraint is being forced against our will to accept someone else’s choices or forced against our will to act according to their will rather than our own.
Free will is synonymous with autonomy. It is a person’s ability to make choices for themselves, without being forced to choose or act against their will. It is as simple as that.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 8:07 am
Marvin:
You have a few things wrong. The teachings of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus are not the same. Jesus was not a Christian.
Retribution is what propels the justice system. This idea of rehabilitation and deterrence are red herrings in the God is our righteousness crock of Christian lip service. The Christian justice system is ridiculous because if there was any justice in rehabilitation you would not support a justice system that hangs your sins around your neck for the rest of your life called a criminal record that prevents getting a job, that limits your opportunities for a job, among many other things.
Jesus preached Christianity but Christianity pays lip service and their heart is far from Jesus, Christianity has formulated the criminal record without forgiveness.
What free will do you have when you cannot control the thoughts that come into your head?
Sam is right on that everything you think and do is from a long list of prior causes. You have no more free will about the thoughts that come into your head than you have in a bunch of night thoughts that arise randomly in your dreams.
If you can’t make choices about the next thought that comes into your head then how can you make a choice from free will to think what you want to? The mind works with random thoughts cropping up without notice, not on free will thoughts; If you had free will you would be able to inspect the thoughts that pop into your mind but how could that be without thinking about the thought before you decide to think about the thought in the first place? This is one of the simplest things to understand, even a cave man could reason the regression where that line of thinking takes you.
I studied psych and psychology was my university major too. Determinism much like fatalism, have absolutely nothing to do with having free will; they are different lines of thought. You seem to think that determinism and free will are companions.
Autonomy is meaningless and irrelevant. You have no free will to decide the cause and effect of who your parents are, where you are born, the state of your caste system, the environmental factors, culture, religion, societal values, how tall you are, your soul, if you have one; you are subjected to a long list of prior cause of which you have no control in their creation or control.
Inevitability comes up all the time in the criminal system. It always forms part of the pre-sentence report for the Judge’s information, so is a psychiatric and psychology report important considerations, child abuse, poverty, education, all prior causes that influence adult outcomes of which are impossible to ignore.
Without absolute freedom you can have no free will. It is impossible unless you are a religious believer; then, anything the imagination can conjure will and does fantasize about free will that can never explain but incessantly tries to explain, moral evil, natural evil in relation to the imaginative omni-Gods created since the year dot.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 8:23 am
Marvin:
If you think you make choices from a vacuum without any prior causes including a long list of prior causes and effects throughout your life you are that bird, living in a cage. In a cage, in a dream.
Free will is impossible, incoherent and worse than merely useless. It makes you blind to everything we call reality.
Tell me what the next thought that you, out of free will, will have in the next instant or in the next minute or two? You can’t because you do not have free will to think your thoughts; you can only think about the thought once it comes to your mind; otherwise, you are blind to your thoughts as is every human being and if you do not have free will thoughts then from where does your idea of free will stem? Religion, reason? Most likely the thoughts you will have will be caused by what I write,; after that, thoughts will spark up randomly and you have no control over what thoughts will come.
This is irrefutable.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 8:44 am
Marvin:
What part of “know” don’t you understand? When you awake in the morning tell me what thought you will start having from your free will to think? NONE. You can only have free will to act on the thought once it happens, not before it happens. You want to move, get up, go to the bathroom, make breakfast, eat nothing, drink. You can only act on the thought that comes, without free will, in order to free willfully act on the thought after you have the inevitable thought out of your control or your Mother’s control, not before. You are operating in a box on the thought you have but the thought you have is not of free will, what you do after the random thought comes, is free will, intent, purpose, goal, target, to do or not to do.
I had a spinal block anesthesia for a recent operation. After the operation the random thought to move my legs occurred to me; then, after the thought, I exercised my free will to act on the thought; I could not move my legs. Over the next hour or so the thoughts came many times to move my legs and many times I could not move my legs. Eventually the spinal anesthesia wore off and again the thought to move my legs occurred; my “free will” to act on the thought to move my legs was successful. Thought is the cause, effect is your free will to act on it or not so the simplicity is that, since you do not have free will to cause the thought in the first place, free will is an illusion at best.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 9:14 am
SonofMan: “Retribution is what propels the justice system.”
Well, retribution is a deterministic scheme of behavior modification. The “eye for an eye” threat is certainly a deterministic deterrent to the guy going around poking people’s eyes out.
But whenever a less drastic penalty can successfully alter the offender’s future behavior, then justice requires using the lesser penalty. That’s why you don’t find Americans chopping off the shoplifter’s hands. We care about justice.
And, being largely a Christian nation, we are schooled in church to seek the redemption (rehabilitation) of the sinner (criminal offender) rather than writing him off. That’s why we have “correctional facilities”. That’s why we have rehabilitation programs providing education, skills training, and counseling. It is what Jesus would do.
SonofMan: “What free will do you have when you cannot control the thoughts that come into your head?”
Dude, I AM the thoughts in my head. Both the conscious and the unconscious processes of my complex neurological system are parts of ME. Those influences which you insist are driving me against my will are in fact essential parts of me formulating my own will.
The illusion of separation, that somehow my reasons and feelings could force me to go against my reasons and feelings is the basis of your logical error.
SonofMan: “Sam is right on that everything you think and do is from a long list of prior causes.”
Of course. Everything that I choose to do of my own free will is also inevitable. That’s a logical implication of reliable cause and effect (determinism).
However, it is also true that it is in fact ME that is doing the choosing. And my choices and my actions are the final responsible cause of what directly follows.
Whenever you state the fact of inevitability in such a way that it denies the fact that it is my own choosing that is the determining factor in what becomes inevitable, you are preaching fatalism. Fatalism encourages apathy and despair, it attacks moral responsibility, in short, it is morally corrupting. So please knock it off.
Determinism – Free Will = Fatalism
SonofMan: “Autonomy is meaningless and irrelevant.”
So you won’t mind when we come to lock you up and subject you to behavioristic conditioning so that you believe in God?
SonofMan: “You have no free will to decide the cause and effect of who your parents are, where you are born, the state of your …”
That’s correct. My free will begins when I begin and ends when I end. There is no need for me to time travel to the Big Bang and make quantum adjustments in order to have free will right now.
The only requirement is that it is authentically me, myself, as I am right now, making my own decisions from moment to moment, without someone else making choices for me and forcing me to act against my will.
SonofMan: “Inevitability comes up all the time in the criminal system.”
Not universal, deterministic inevitability. The only thing that comes up to the judge during sentencing are all of the information about the offender which would guide the nature and severity of the penalty required for correction. The person who has proved to be incorrigible would be kept in jail longer. The person who is more easily rehabilitated would get a lesser sentence. That is the pragmatics of sentencing.
If the person can be taught to make better choices in the future, then his prospects for rehabilitation are good. The goal is an autonomously righteous person, who no longer needs to be watched or jailed.
SonofMan: “Without absolute freedom you can have no free will.”
You are mistaken. Free will is just me deciding for myself what I will do next. I do not require freedom from causation, freedom from myself, or freedom from reality or any other silly imaginary freedom to have free will.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 9:17 am
Marvin:
Initial thoughts that occur in a daily basis every few seconds all the waking day is an immediate cause but not necessarily a first cause because most thoughts have a convoluted tail with a long list of prior causes that can form from a Centillion (10 to the 303 power) of prior causes and effects over a lifetime including genetic and biology predispositions from previous generations.You are not operating from a vacuum of personal, ego-oriented self-regulated, conscious free will. Uh uh!
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 9:23 am
SonofMan: “This is irrefutable.”
Been there, done that. Please see prior comments.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 9:51 am
Marvin:
Rehabilitation and Deterrence are lip service words in a Christian justice system that keeps a record like an albatross around one’s neck. When Jesus said forgiveness he meant forgiveness not rehabilitation or deterrence.
And one more time: If you cannot free willfully decide on the thoughts that randomly occur in your mind, your sense of free will is an illusional delusion; you can only speak about free to decide after the thought comes from prior causes that you had no no free will to decide or control.
No matter how tall or how short you are, you had no free will to decide on the matter and more likely than not your foot size will determine your shoe size and you free will may decide on color, laces, buckles. More likely the expense of your shoe purchase will depend on the available funds than on your choice of high end or low end, religion may determine if you accept a blood transfusion or eat bacon.
What free will would a person needing spectacles have exercised to decide to choose contact lenses before they were invented.
““You have no free will to decide the cause and effect of who your parents are, where you are born, the state of your …”
That’s correct.”
And that admission is an obvious remark why free will is an illusion.
The Big Bang is an illusion too because according to you, you have free will now without admitting prior causes before you were conceived, zygoted, gestationally nourished and born with a brain state, nervous system and immune system that are prior causes of future effects without the illusion of free will to fend off or avoid any effect. Nothing.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 9:52 am
Hey I just had another one of about 10 thoughts over the last hour and this time I will exercise my free will and eat!
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 1:43 pm
SonofMan: “When Jesus said forgiveness he meant forgiveness not rehabilitation…”
See the parables of the Prodigal Son or the Lost Sheep. For more modern examples, consider the Salvation Army’s Turning Point program for alcoholics.
Redemption (salvation, conversion, etc) and rehabilitation (sanctification through study and prayer) are central to Christianity.
SonofMan: “If you cannot free willfully decide on the thoughts that randomly occur in your mind, your sense of free will is an illusional delusion;”
That which exists or happens in physical reality cannot be called an illusion.
(a) Neither I nor the neurological system that produces me is an illusion.
(b) The fact that I started with multiple options and produced a single choice is not an illusion. A real process took place in physical reality.
(c) The fact that I carried out this process freely and willfully, without interference from anyone else is not an illusion.
(d) All of the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious events happened in the physical reality of me.
None of this is an illusion. Free will is a real event that takes place in physical reality.
SonofMan: “The Big Bang is an illusion too because according to you, you have free will now without admitting prior causes before you were conceived …”
Let me repeat what I said in my very first comment here: To start, let me be clear that I believe in perfect determinism. There are no uncaused effects.
The logical implication of perfect determinism is universal inevitability. All events will unfold in a single, inevitable way.
However, within the context of perfect determinism, we are purposeful causal agents, operating upon our own built-in agenda: to survive as organisms, as societies, and as a species. And we are equipped with sufficient neurological horsepower to learn from experience, to construct experiments, to imagine alternative means to our ends, and to choose which means we will employ.
When we make these choices for ourselves, we are acting of our own free will. When someone else makes these choices for us, forcing us to choose or act against our will, then our will is not free.
That’s all that free will is. And it is a meaningful and significant distinction.
You (and a lot of people throughout history) have made too much of inevitability. Usually, people use “inevitable” to suggest something that is “beyond our control”. But deterministic inevitability is only true when it includes ALL causes. And one of those causes is US.
We are real physical entities in a real deterministic universe who actually make choices. And, for all practical purposes, our choices physically determine what happens next, that is, what becomes inevitable.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Marvin:
Illusion: what you believe controls the physical reality effect but does not.
Examples of illusions:
Free Will
Supernaturalism,
Paranormal activity,
Magic,
Miracles,
Gods: Apollos and Zeus included
Demons,
Leprechauns,
Loch Ness Monsters,
Boogie Man,
Angel wings,
Angels dancing on heads of pins
Myths,
Tooth Fairy,
Sandman,
Answered Prayer,
Prophecy,
Psychics.
Sanctification is an over used religious term that does not mean study and prayer. It means set apart for the intelligent use for which something was intelligently made. Anything can be sanctified. When I put my shoes on my feet and walk down the street with them on my feet, I sanctify them. I could of course put them on my head and go barefoot; you’d think I was a little unusual; you’d be right.
Language is another “religious thing” used in a ridiculous way such as John 1:14 referring to the Word (language) was made flesh and dwelt among us.
Christianity has more in common with the religious rituals of the Scribes and Pharisees and Church dogma than it does with Jesus teachings
Strict determinism is an illusion, a consequence of idealization. Perfect determinism is an idealization, an abstraction from reality, which is only statistically deterministic because the indeterministic influences of random quantum events are averaged over. To the extent that randomness is needed to break the causal chain of strict physical determinism, many philosophers continue to think that free will is the illusion.
Your a,b,c,d, above are physical activities but comparing the physical results of actions to prior causal effects that determine free will as an illusion is comparing apples and orangutans; it’s Free Will that is the illusion not the physical effects of neurology, nervous system, memory, and other prior causes randomly bringing thoughts with which to act or not to act upon, to be or not to be. You have free will to act on random thoughts that present but not the free will to determine the thought that presents in the first instance.
If there really is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Will you go looking for it or pass?
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 6:52 pm
Do the parables of the Prodigal Son or the Lost Sheep. have something to do with rehabilitation? Otherwise I don’t understand your references.
LikeLike
September 22, 2015 at 9:12 pm
By “perfect determinism” I mean that I believe there are no uncaused events and that everything works in a perfectly reliable way, even though we may never know the causes of certain effects.
Things we describe as “random” or “indeterminate” are causally deterministic, but our tools are insufficient to provide any detailed predictability. So instead we use statistical tools that can pragmatically predict the behavior of large samples. But the reliability of those distributions suggest an underlying deterministic reality.
A lot of people are putting their money on quantum indeterminism, which is like nearly perfect determinism with just a pinch of indeterminism, supposedly enough to give us some breathing room.
But most people have no clue what “causal indeterminism” would actually be like. Suppose, for example, we had a control knob and could adjust the balance of determinism and indeterminism. If we turned it up a notch above quantum indeterminacy we might get effects like this: When I pick an apple I normally have an apple in my hand. But turn up the indeterminism and now when I pick an apple I will sometimes have an apple, sometimes a kitten, sometimes a pair of slippers, and sometimes the apple will just go poof! and disappear. Turn indeterminism up one more notch and when I pick an apple gravity will reverse.
And “perfect indeterminism” would be impossible to even imagine.
So I tend to slice off indeterminism with Occam’s Razor. If I demonstrate that free will exists within a perfectly deterministic universe then that is more than sufficient.
And I’ve done that: When faced with a decision, we mentally evaluate our reasons and feelings about each option, and then we make a choice. That choice is our will at that moment. And if no one forced us to choose or act against our will, then it is a choice of our own free will.
When we exercise our free will we are performing a mental process that is as firmly rooted in physical reality as when we stand up to go to the kitchen to get a bite to eat. Thinking is as real as walking. There are no illusions at all. And there is nothing magical or supernatural required.
The only illusion is that free will somehow conflicts with inevitability. This historical mental error is a response to an imaginary existential threat to our self-control, as if we were the victims of inevitability rather than the final responsible cause of our own actions.
LikeLike
September 23, 2015 at 7:48 am
Religion: “I see it because I believe it”
Atheism: “I believe it because I see it”
Secularism: “I’ll believe it and see it, if and when I want to.”
Free Will: “I alone am the cause of my own effect”
Marvin:
I submit that discussing semantics to describe things we speculate about and theories that may be possibilities or even probabilities is merely slicing words to dissect our personal understanding of what we believe. The truth is what is, IS regardless of what we believe.
We do not know for sure these things we debate any more than the Church knew what it was talking about when it accused, charged, convicted and locked up Galileo for heresy because Church Dogma was steadfast in its position that the earth was the center of the universe and that everything revolved around the earth based on ancient scriptures.
Galileo supported Copernicus that the sun was the center of our universe and the earth revolved around it; Galileo invented the telescope to prove it and the Church Bishops and Principalities in Power refused to even look through the telescope set up in Galileo’s back yard, for themselves, for fear they would be cured of their ignorance and freed by knowledge, a freedom that belief never give can give.
So having said that, according to your definition of perfect determinism the logic of “there are no uncaused events and that everything works in a perfectly reliable way” must necessarily preclude Free Will because if perfect determinism means no uncaused events then Free Will is meaningless because Free Will would have to cause one effect or the other effect.
If you have two options, regardless of what you choose the choice is already reliably made for you and everybody else determined by perfect determinism. Either the left or the right option is already determined before any free will can come into play therefore free will is an illusion by your own definition of perfect determinism.
This is most obvious. Don’t you agree with me? Your choice by free will cannot determine any outcome as it is superseded by perfect determinism that is already perfectly reliable because there cannot be “no uncaused events” and “caused events” at the same time since you say that free will cause the event of your choosing.
Occam’s Razor:
Perfect Determinism equals: ” No Uncaused events”; perfectly reliable
Free will equals: ” Caused events” caused by free will.
This logic must be perfectly confusing to you 🙂
I am made in the image of the God I create! I am listening to the Pope’s speech at this moment.
LikeLike
September 23, 2015 at 9:54 am
SonofMan: “If you have two options, regardless of what you choose the choice is already reliably made for you and everybody else determined by perfect determinism. ”
Don’t be silly. Perfect determinism INCLUDES me. It cannot make any of my choices for me. Only I can make those choices.
The fact that my choice will be inevitable does not change anything. I still have to go through whatever mental processes are required to make the decision and act upon it. And it doesn’t matter whether it is an instantaneous, unconscious decision to swerve to avoid another car on the road, or whether it is a lengthy complex decision worked out on paper to choose which new car I want to buy and which options I want to include.
It is still me making the choice for myself and for my own reasons. Inevitability never comes in a taps me on the shoulder and says, “Hey, let me do that for you.” Inevitability is useless and irrelevant in all practical situations.
SonofMan: “Either the left or the right option is already determined before any free will can come into play therefore free will is an illusion by your own definition of perfect determinism.”
What is already determined is that I will freely choose which car I will buy. Of course, if someone comes in and puts a gun to my head and tells me to buy a truck instead, or he’ll blow my brains out, then I would buy the truck, but I would not do so of my own free will.
There are many scenarios where the concept of free will makes a practical and meaningful distinction. Parents often make decisions for their children. When the Pilgrims were forced to attend the state church in England against their will. When an atheist child is forced to recite the pledge of allegiance with the “Under God” clause.
Free will is an important and useful concept. And it is not diminished one bit by the fact that our choices are deterministically inevitable.
The fact of deterministic inevitability is one of the most useless facts anyone can know.
For example, there is nothing you can do about it. If I’m making a choice between A and B, and I sense that A is going to be my inevitable choice, can I choose B instead, to spite inevitability? No. Because my spite causes B to become inevitable. So I go back to A, but now A is inevitable again … It is an infinite and useless loop.
And if I’m in the middle of a tough decision, and you point out to me that whatever I choose will have been inevitable, then you’ve done nothing but annoy me with useless information.
And when you tell me that “the choice is already reliably made for you” you are encouraging me to sit back in apathy. And that is more than useless, it is a morally corrupting lie.
Determinism – Free Will = Fatalism.
LikeLike
September 23, 2015 at 10:11 am
Marvin:
Of all the things you lost do you miss your mind the most?
The one thing I have learned from you is that if it wasn’t for nonsense you would have no sense at all.
Have a nice groundhog day.
LikeLike
September 23, 2015 at 10:27 am
I just lost a few brain cells after reading Post # 38
LikeLike
September 23, 2015 at 12:00 pm
SonofMan: “Of all the things you lost do you miss your mind the most?”
I understand your problem. You have this sense that all you need to do is convince someone that everything is caused, and every cause is caused, such that inevitability must certainly be true.
But I begin where you leave off. I start with the presumption of deterministic inevitability. And I find meaningful free will right there in the middle of it all.
It’s easy. All you have to do is discard the silly business of “freedom from causation”, and discover what freedom operationally means in a deterministic universe.
All practical human concepts, including free will, must serve a useful purpose if they are to survive intellectual evolution.
The idea of “acting of your own free will” always means that you are making choices for yourself and acting upon them. When you are forced to submit to someone else’s will, then your will is constrained, that is, no longer free.
And that is a meaning that everyone understands. For example, consider Benjamin Libet’s now famous experiments where he showed that unconscious mental activity preceded a conscious awareness of choosing to squeeze your fist. He titled the report “Do We Have Free Will?”
Now, suppose I were to ask, “Were his student subjects required to be part of the study as a class work assignment or did they choose to participate of their own free will?”
Did you understand the question? If so then you understand the meaning of ordinary free will.
It is not a magical or supernatural power. It is not “freedom from causation”, because each student would choose to participate or not based upon their own reasons, and these would deterministically cause their choice.
In fact, every choice we make of our own free will also happens to be deterministically inevitable. But it is still us making that choice for our own reasons, and not a choice forced on us by someone else.
LikeLike
September 23, 2015 at 12:51 pm
ME:
Stay away from a fool, for you will not find knowledge on their lips. They will scorn, despise, mock and tread on prudent words. His contradictions will be reasoned as meaningless or meaning the same; the negative as the positive.
It is our duty to take all fit occasions to speak of divine things; but if what a man says will not be heard, let him hold his peace………….
LikeLike
September 23, 2015 at 12:59 pm
Good point. I’ll try to keep that in mind.
LikeLike
September 23, 2015 at 1:08 pm
Randy is utterly ignorant of Greek!!! He is Xeroxing certain others whom I have read on the internet who do not know or understand Greek or Hebrew either. Rank amateurs. Been researching those two languages since 1963 and there is much to learn and many reference works required.
To respect what the website owner wishes will stay on topic.
This is linked or free will to God’s Principle of plant and reap. Summing up :’What we think we create in the form of conditions , circumstances and events.’ ‘What we imagine we become’, and ‘what we feel we attract’ or the end game is ‘sow from our mind and then reap.’
Emerson got it right when he said,’ We think the event is alien to our thought because we can’t see it, but it is linked to us and fits us like a glove.’ We ‘reap what we think’ he said ‘all day long.’ All too simple I know.
LikeLike
September 25, 2015 at 6:55 am
Jason,
You dismissed my short comment about Universalism and Open Theism as if I was off point. They are each central to the subject of compatibility.
Universalism. You said the Scriptural argument is weak.
Anyone who believes in an “eternal” (never ending) hell cannot explain more than 200 Bible verses and passages such as:
“…we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” 1 Timothy 4:10
Timothy did not say God is the potential savior of all men. He made a blanket statement that surely means exactly what it seems to mean. Especially believers, Jason, not only believers.
Your proof texts to the contrary are quite easily answered by a correct understanding of the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated “eternal”.
There is a hell. It is an awful place where no one would ever want to spend one minute. The Bible indicates, strongly, that some will go there for very long duration. But it is not “eternal” or never ending.
Open Theism: I now believe Open Theism is a very brilliant answer to the age old question about predestination. There are brilliant scholars who have formulated the details of the theory. It does, brilliantly, answer many deep questions of reconciling Scripture. It is a very difficult theory that takes a very bright person to understand it. I recommend highly that you spend quality time on that subject.
Open Theism: You love your wife and children. Would you rather they be robots and would you rather that you would know every detail of their future? Or would you rather they have true free will? Radically free will? A free will that allows them to really and voluntarily love you?
It seems very clear that God feels the same way. We were made in His image. He wants us to voluntarily love Him. He voluntarily created us with true free will. Not all of His creatures rebelled against Him, but all of us on this earth did. However, our state is temporal. We will all love him, voluntarily. All of us. God will be 100% successful.
Randy
LikeLike
September 25, 2015 at 7:13 am
Sonofman,
I will try to answer some of your points later, but for now, let me just make the following comments.
Free will is not an illusion. We have genuine free will.
Think about it this way. If you have children, you know how their voluntary acts bring you great joy and often surprise you. And, they sometimes make you angry, or sad, sometimes very sad.
Would your rather your children be robots? Would you rather they be programed to do only the right thing and you would know exactly what they would do in the future? Would you rather they never surprise you?
Or, would you rather they have true free will and that they be on a course where one day their still free will decisions will all delight you?
God voluntarily made us with true free will.
Randy
LikeLike
September 25, 2015 at 10:08 am
Randy:
I grant you that you have free will to act on the thoughts that pop into your head but you do not have free will over the thoughts that pop into your head, which come randomly from prior causes.
Neurons are firing all the time while we wake and in dream states while we sleep and since we have no control over neurons firing ,which bring thoughts to bear upon our minds, how can we then say that we have true free will without such prior causes in action?
A baby fresh out of the womb can have no free will until the sensory information is registered in the brain. Palmer and plantar grasps(clutching), sucking, rooting, stepping, startle, thrust the tongue, these newborn reflexes are automatic responses to stimuli. Every stimuli one has throughout one’s life will be prior causes that come into play when when a thought comes into our mind and we then began exercising what we loosely call free will.
Your night thoughts manifest as dreams and those thoughts play on the next random thought and so on to the next random thought and if we wake while in the dream or shortly after the dream, how many times do we say the dream thoughts we remember sometimes make no sense at all?
We have no free will in what dream thoughts come neither do we have any free will to make decisions what to dream or not to dream; however, I do note that dream behavior, while we have no free will to control the random thoughts during the dream, one’s role playing in one’s dream in some instances is influenced unconsciously by one’s normal sense of right and wrong that has become embedded in the psyche of those who by practice have their senses trained up in the discernment of right and wrong and those boundaries are not crossed in dream behavior. Sometimes I fly in my dreams but the visual experience in the dreams is probably based on video footage or prior airline flights.
Now just in the hypothetical If I ask you a question, yes, you will have the free will to answer the question; but not the free will of the thought that the question I ask you will trigger, before you hear the matter; you have no free will over prior causes only free will after the cause comes by way of thought.
How can we free willfully choose the thoughts we have throughout the day; we cannot, we can only act after the cause comes. If you chose your thoughts; then, you would be a robot.
For me to reason differently than you indicates that we have had exposure to a whole lot of different stimuli 🙂
LikeLike
September 25, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Weather and free will? Crime is at certain percentages in certain areas with some variances, of course. But, when there is a snow storm, for example, crime goes down. Why? The weather! Even hardened criminals don’t want to or have the will to go out in a snow storm and commit crimes, at least most don’t!
A family plans on going on a trip. They all pack and get ready. Then they learn of a storm in the area they were going to travel and stay so they change their minds and decide it’s safer to go another time in spite of all the advance planning. We can say it’s a function of the brain desiring to protect one’s life from death, material loss or injury ;but it’s the will that decides it’s not to one’s advantage to engage in a plan be it good or evil or purpose, etc.
Doesn’t have to be a storm as some – if the weather is too hot- decide to stay indoors with their AC on thus they change their mind about traveling somewhere close or far.
Weather many times causes a human being (even animals) to change their mind, and alter their course of action.
Sickness also alters determination of action in various circumstances too.
Other people’s decisions can affect our determination as to a course of action, etc., too.
Biblical: As Stephen told the Jews Acts 7:51 (in Greek),”Hard-necked ones and uncircumcised ones in your hearts and hearing,you constantly are going against the Holy Spirit just as your fathers did …”The word “resist”(‘going against’ antipiptete in Greek) the KJV means to, withstand, oppose; combat; confront; oppugn; recalcitration ; contumact ; intractable. I expanded the Greek definition to show how the Scripture regards the strength and determination of the human will when confronted with something they disagree with for good or evil.
Pharaoh as was fairly common with the Pharaohs of history had a very strong will and heart.
It says in one place Ex.7:3, ‘God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.’ In another place ‘Pharaoh hardened his heart.’ Ex.8:15 The message that Moses delivered was really God’s Word and Command. Pharaoh had to react towards it and did so by stating his real will and heart in the matter which was resistance or no! Within the sentence ‘God hardened P’s will’ is found in the ‘message’ or ‘release My people’ which was God’s will and heart so that’s how God in a ‘secondary'(for primary) manner hardened P’s will and heart without forcing him to believe or act as God wished.
If Moses had not delivered that ultimatum or message which was God’s then no reaction from Pharaoh so no reason to wait thousands of years for John Calvin’s extreme opinions on the will ! Primary and secondary(name of a book I am going to write) are the same when you segment correctly. God created man. After that it says the ‘Lord made man’ in that he created the first man or primary creation so thereby ‘making man’ is secondary, but the same in one respect. It also says, Adam created a ‘son in his likeness and image.’ Gen.5:3 This after stating “…God created man.” vvs.1-2
The beginning and the ending are really the same. If the premise if held is correct so will be the conclusion.
LikeLike
September 25, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Dr H. Davis:
How does scholarly academia answer this question:
Did Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, if there ever was a first man and a first woman, have belly buttons?
LikeLike
September 25, 2015 at 3:05 pm
Sono,
From the Bible in the original I know you don’t believe this, but this is the subject matter and am ‘reporting.’ Translation: ‘God created Adam,(but he was to became dust from the ground) and He breathed into his nostrils the spirit of lives [pl. 3 or more in Heb. mental/spiritual and physical] and man became an individual of life.’ It is an objective compliment when diagramed from Hebrew . That is it tells us what Adam was to become not what he was made from! He was not made from dust but after his fall he was to become dust (obj. complement. -a retro historical point in past time when Moses wrote that verse) a Hebraism for death. “Dust and ashes” was a figure of speech for humility too. Gen.18:27
What is was saying was that even though God created man and gave him life he would to die in that he would disobey God’s test and eat of the Tree of Lives (lives pl. ending in Heb. always 3 or more- dual in Heb. is 2 or more- ‘ lives’- mental/spiritual physical- the Tree a type of Christ). It was a prediction.
So he came straight from the creative power of God as had the earth (not from the earth as with the animals Heb. min is used ‘from out of the earth’ He made ‘animals Gen.2:19 not an objective compliment and min Heb.is used unlike in 2:7- Job 33:4 this was understood in the early years of man as presented in the Bible ) so sorry no navel!
Creation of Eve a rib? No!!! Rib ( tselem curve of the body Heb. an entity of feminine form) is in the feminine gender and describes the ‘feminine one’- NOT a bloody rib! All tradition.
Expanded Heb. Translation: “And the Lord God caused a deep trance to fall over Adam and he slept, and He firmly grasped the feminine one[Eve] and reached inside and quickly pulled her[feminine person-rib] out and sealed up the flesh underneath so as to cease the flowing of blood ;and then cleaned up the feminine one [she was not named yet] and conducted her to Adam.”
Ribs means side. It was Adam’s entire side from head to foot.
I could go into this MUCH more deeply from Hebrew and the grammar, etc., but will stick with your Bible question.
Eve was within Adam. See even in English vvs.23
So no reason for a navel!
When she got pregnant Gen.4:1 the fetus or Cain was nourished by her uterus and when born that nourishment ‘pipeline’ or cord had to be severed and scar tissue would form or create a belly button (thus we are made members of the ‘stomach club’ because we have our belly ‘button!’ ) or navel. Same for Abel who was born soon after v 2. And all who were born since.
Adam and Eve were never conceived and born.
LikeLike
September 25, 2015 at 3:42 pm
Randy,
Why don’t you start a blog or thread on Universalism that way you keep to the owner’s wishes? It’s his site! He wants straight on topic here is all.
I will make a quick mention again you do not know Greek! Context? Unique savior to all who BELIEVE.v.10 Can do this from Greek once you do your thread.
l Tim.4:2
“…having their conscience seared with a [red] hot iron…” “Seared” in Greek :to brand with a red hot poker; from kahyo to set on fire or burn and cauterize-totally without any sensation at all. We know this is obviously a -and in Greek -a figure of speech that is saying some people have no conscience- it is beyond all feeling or conviction. The perfect tense in the Greek language is strong as to the prefect tense. It is ‘a past completed act having present and PERMANENT results.’ I have studied Greek since 1963.
Now, we go to v.2 “seared.” That is PERFECT tense! This means these people Paul wrote about have had their conscience spiritually cauterized (Gk.) so there is no feeling towards God whatsoever or salvation or conviction of sin ! Perfect tense “seared”it is, sorry, here permanent or fixed forever.
CF At the end of all things eternity context! Rev.21:8;27; 22:11;14-15.
“It would have been good if he [Judas] had NEVER been born.” Jesus
LikeLike
September 25, 2015 at 3:47 pm
Thank you.
It’s an interesting story for believers although most of the mythological stories about how the Gods came into being and how mankind came into being as well, for the believers, is really interesting as well to see how fertile the imagination is, in a man,
Now me not being a believer I have to concoct my own imaginative spell binding story. First I would rule out the supernatural, poof poof creations that claps, shouts or speaks things into existence but I would start the story back as far back as the fossil record takes us and then from there would begin the history of the world. In the ancient world there would be little reference to the dinosaurs let’s say but there is a long tradition in Chinese folklore about the dragons and people who barely escaped being gulped down would certainly have remembered the close call, especially the hot breath coming from a mouth ready to bite you in two; hence the fire that comes out of the mouth of the dragons.
The fruit of the forbidden tree would have been forbidden because that is where the predators would gather to prey on the animals that came to eat of the fruit so death was at the doorstep of the forbidden tree in much the same way that predators prey on animals that come to the water holes in the Serengeti.
The village of people would naturally have forbidden these places to the youngsters to protect them from the predators.
I think that the ancients would not have seen any fossil remains of the big dinosaurs but if they did I’m sure somehow they would have fit into the biblical mythology yarn in Genesis. The flood I think happened because it is in the psyche of the culture but I believe it would have happened in a much different way that would show Noah’s common sense of what to do to avoid the inevitable when it did come as he knew it would but again without the supernaturalism and so in a very different way.
Take care.
LikeLike
September 25, 2015 at 4:26 pm
http://creation.com/Robert-Ballard-did-not-discover-Noahs-Flood
LikeLike
September 26, 2015 at 1:47 am
Jason,
If I’m understanding you correctly your concerned about what produces difficulty in the deliberation process in exercising choice. Aside from obvious handicaps like a tendency to procrastinate or lack of personal experience in the matter to be decided; choosing proves difficult due to high stakes and irrevocable outcome. I’d point to the example of making one’s last will and testament. I can’t think of another significant decision with such untold complex implications & ramifications that produces more irresolution. Once enacted you’re dependent on someone else to eventually enforce the free choice that you made regarding final dispensation of all you’ve acquired in this earthly life and how that impacts those you love.
http://www.hg.org/will-and-testament.html
MacArthur presents a comfortable if not fully satisfying compromise in working through the apparent conflict between Divine Sovereignty and Human Volition:
LikeLike
September 26, 2015 at 4:36 am
Davis,
After your long monotones, you are accusing me of being off point? You do not understand either universalism or open theism, and your Greek and Hebrew are pigeon. 🙂
You remind me of PHD’s or medical doctors who provide the “doctor” to their name when getting a reservation at a restaurant. That you think “doctor” adds to your credence proves you are a bit too into this world.
So, please be polite, and so will I.
Randy
LikeLike
September 26, 2015 at 3:17 pm
I would like to submit a commentary directly relating to the topic of deliberating, conjunction; desires, conjunction; and, conflicting desires.
Whether desires come from God or from Universal (natural) laws, they are nevertheless by design, and desires in and of themselves are not the source of conflict. The phrase “conflicting desires” itself is an oxymoron because we tend to use it in the context of a conflict within the person because of the desires thus laying the conflict in the lap of the person having the desires and assume that that person is responsible for the conflict because of the desires.
When I speak of desires I am not speaking about the desire to kill your roommate; that is not a desire, that is an aberration in humanity that may occur from a peculiar freakish deviation from normality but labeling it a desire is a misconstrual of the word desire and should more appropriately link “killing your roommate” not as a desire but more rightly as a psycho behavior by a psychopathic or psychotic person. a crazy or mentally unstable person. Desire does not appropriately describe that horrid example.
Desire is a strong feeling that impels to the attainment or possession of something that is (in reality or imagination) within reach: a desire for success. Craving implies a deep and imperative wish for something, based on a sense of need and hunger: a craving for food, companionship, love, forgiveness, tolerance and acceptance.
Desire, from where I sit, denotes something that is worthy to pursue, hope for, to wish for, to pray for, to strive for. Desires then are not conflicting, what is conflicting is the tough deliberation that individuals must negotiate within themselves because of a societal structure that clings to a thing brought up by Jason in his previous post Sept 5, 2015, entitled “Christians should be made to take homosexuality off of the sin list”. And it is precisely this “Sin List” that causes what this Post refers to as conflicting desires by asking the question “Compatibilists: Why do you deliberate?”.
I do not have an opposition to a sin list; we all should have a sin list. But the “Sin List” has to be tailored to the individual and not tailored as a general sin list for the rest of society. Going back for a moment to the homosexuality being taken off the sin list; well, as far as homosexuals go I think they would not include homosexuality as a sin on THEIR sin list but would possibly include discrimination on that sin list because of the way other people treat them and have always treated them since ancient times.
Now just in the hypothetical, let’s say you are not a homosexual person then your sin list should not include homosexuality as a sin because it does not apply to you because you are not of that personal persuasion; it should neither be right nor wrong for you so it needn’t be on your sin list; it just doesn’t apply. So the conflict might begin if you have homosexuality on your sin list that only applies to your neighbor. And you neighbor feels that shame that general society imposes on others just as the shame that black people were made to feel because of their skin color. Get the picture?
On the other hand we could reasonably assume that there would be listed some sins common to all such as the commandments of social transgression on the sin list of both homosexuals and heterosexuals; let’s say, taking somebody’s else’s life such as “killing your roommate” would be a sin listed on both gay and non gay sin lists that would be a sin if you chose to commit such an act.; and, I imagine we could come up with many more sins that common to both groups.
So the conflict of desires then is because there are general sin lists where other people have two sin lists; a self rightoues one and a other non righteous one; one sin list for themselves and another sin lists for the outsiders. That is the conflict that requires tough deliberation when your desires conflict with the sin lists of others. One has to wonder if one can even bring their diversities to light and endure the shame that is bound to come from others willing to crucify you because of your differences. Religion for example, generally wants to impose a universal morality which is why it has always attracted the kind of person who thinks other people’s private lives are their business.
Here is an illustration you cannot possibly fail to understand how desire can come about and how the sin lists of others, about others, cause the conflict of those desires that requires tough deliberation. It is the natural desire of sexuality by design, call it from God or Natural Universal Laws, regardless of what you may call it, it is “by design” as strong in humanity and the life forces of the world as gravity is on solar bodies that we witness every day in tidal ebbs and flows.
Visual stimulation of a woman for example by a man and I use the heterosexual gender references without excluding same/same by way of example but vision itself without willing participation on the part of the beholder will begin a process we respond to by design. Sometimes this response is called love and sometimes it is called lust but lust is a misnomer because vision creates an automatic response we have no control over. Now there are societies try to mitigate this response by covering the female body, the female head; in fact; everything beautiful and wonderful about the female body insomuch that only her eyes can be seen. This is for sexual control, cultural control that has become so customary it is even called religious control..
When the beauty of an adult woman enters the vision of an adult man reactions begin from the optical receptors, that run to the brain, that fires neurons, that release chemicals and hormone production of adrenalin causes the heart to increase beating and blood flows grow, course through the system and behold something occurs that we call erection, this is not a dirty word, this reaction is the prerequisite for very life itself. I sometimes refer to it facetiously as the “reptile function” or in some cases, in latter years, “reptile dysfunction”.
However those who would control every aspect of “other” lives, specifically sexuality try to control life’s very design; how smart is that? Societies have indoctrinated the generations by cultural tradition to believe that these natural responses are shameful in the human experience to the point that we adults can barely talk about sexuality without blushing! But sexuality is no shame, we’re designed that way and when we accept everyone else’s freckles, then that shame will diminish and the sin list will shorten and behold, deliberation will be less of a challenge without a society ready to pounce and crucify someone for the natural reflexive instincts built into every boy, girl, man and woman BY DESIGN without exclusion; but, with diverse anomalies, on occasion called the splinter speck in your brother’s eye that may not apply to yourself. So take the sins of others off your sin list and let your gentle heart lead your life and let the gentile heart lead her life.
Respect tradition but don’t let tradition shame you or shame others because that is not good tradition and “not good” is simply “naught”.
LikeLike
September 26, 2015 at 6:49 pm
SonofMan, Very interesting essay on the nature of desires.
We call something “good” if it meets a real need that we have as an individual, a society, or a species.
To the degree that we can objectively know what is actually good for us and what actually harms us, we can make objective statements about morality.
This is very clear in the case of our most basic needs. We can say that giving a glass of water to a man in the desert, who is dying of thirst, is objectively good. And we can say that giving that same glass of water to a man drowning in a swimming pool is objectively bad.
As we move up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs things get a lot fuzzier and more complex.
Desires can be for things that are truly good for us, or they may be for things that are really bad for us. For example, we may really need food but we desire cakes and pies. Not all desires are desirable.
An example of conflicting desires would be a desire for good health and a desire to smoke cigarettes.
Ideally, we would first determine what is objectively good for us and then alter our desires to seek that good. I quit smoking, but continue to eat lots of candy.
Morality seeks the best possible good and least harm for everyone. Each rule is morally judged by that standard.
LikeLike
September 26, 2015 at 7:45 pm
Morality is not the be all, end all of righteousness. Morality in many cases is a question of geography, culture, religion and tradition. Female genital mutilation is repulsive in western society; nevertheless, it is the cultural tradition in some societies perfectly reasonable and acceptable. But consider the phenomenon:
Between 100 million and 140 million women and girls are thought to be living with the consequences of female genital mutilation, according to the World Health Organisation.
FGM is defined by the WHO as “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons”. It is recognised as a violation of the human rights of women and girls. In December 2012, the United Nations general assembly unanimously voted to work for the elimination of FGM throughout the world.
“It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women,” says the WHO. “It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.”
Nevertheless, women who are subjected this atrocity claim that they adhere to it because the custom is so deep rooted that if their children do not have FGM the men in the same society will reject those girls in adulthood as an abomination and refuse to associate with them in marriage. Those girls then will spend the rest of their days as rejects ostracized for not being part of the society and can never hope to marry. The mothers therefore allow FGM in order that their girl children will be allowed to participate in the community.
This is a vicious circle, a whirlpool of stupidism perpetuating the continued abuse and denial and aberration of human rights by a tradition that the entire society is unable to move forward from.
Whether it is moral or immoral is merely a position from where you sit, in the village or outside the village. It is a real dilemma in the continuing civilizing of humanity and one that organizations contend with every day in the west where this barbaric practice still takes place in the back rooms of cultural elders as an addiction of stoneage proportions.
LikeLike
September 26, 2015 at 8:01 pm
“…..giving that same glass of water to a man drowning in a swimming pool is objectively bad.” This is not objectively bad; this is a ridiculous comparison of a psychosis of someone completely out of touch with reality. Objective morality does not exist except in religious circles that deem God as the giver of morals and thereby implying that morals are something outside human perception or understanding and needs to grab onto the God thing of objectivity. I reject that conclusion outright as a folly of religious egoism.
LikeLike
September 27, 2015 at 4:05 am
Sorry, I should have clarified. To me, morality itself is the intent, Kant’s “good will”, behind the moral “code” (rules, ethics, laws, customs, etc.).
As a Humanist, I translate Matthew 22:37-40 as “Love Good, and Love Good for your neighbor as you love it for yourself. All other rules derive from these two.”
And I distinguish the moral man, whose intent is to achieve good results, from an ethical man whose intent is to follow the rules.
Rules and behaviors are judged morally good or morally bad according to how well they achieve the best good and least harm for everyone.
For example, we once had a law that required the return of a runaway slave, because buying and selling black people was thought to be good thing. Later the majority was convinced by the anti-slavery movement that the harms of slavery far outweighed the commercial benefits. So the rules supporting slavery were replaced by new rules that prohibited it.
Any two rules, like slavery or no slavery, can be objectively compared according to how well they serve moral intent.
And this is how you, and the World Health Organization, objectively judged that female genital mutilation was a bad thing: by the unnecessary harm it inflicts upon women.
I believe that everyone uses this same general standard, how to achieve the best good and least harm for everyone, to judge a rule or custom to be objectively good or objectively bad.
And this is the same standard that humans apply when judging “God”.
After all, if there is no objective standard, then how can one person convince another that FGM, or anything else for that matter, is right or wrong?
LikeLike
September 27, 2015 at 6:49 am
Your interpretation of Matt 22:37 is not contrary to my own interpretation; all the term God is, is “Good” with the absence of a double “o” in the spelling.
Hunger pangs is not good but food that relieves hunger is good. And that is what I believe Mahatma Ghandi meant when he said: “There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.” Those of us who were fed out of the womb learned early what good is. The same goes for thirst/water; the basic goods we know are subjective; they become morals when we share the good we know subjectively unto others as per Matt above.
We can only know “Good” subjectively; that subjective knowledge of good transfers as a moral when we treat others with the good as we know it. The discernment of good and bad, right and wrong is subjective because we learn it ourselves by experience and that, not on our own but as we receive it from birth usually as our mother breast feeds us. There is no moral “code” apart from that human interaction.
If I wanted to give you a rest and you were digging a hole in the ground, how’d you think I’d do it.? Here you are, in the hole digging and I want to give you a rest. Sing a little ditty on the edge of the hole? That wouldn’t give you a rest, that would give you a heart attack. Ten rules and regulations on a piece of paper and let it flutter into the dirt? Uh uh. New concepts on digging? Forget it. I could give you a magnificent demonstration of a new technic so that you could throw it over your right shoulder without getting it in your left eye. How about that? That would only frustrate you. There’s only one way I could give you a rest if you were in a hole digging and that is if you get out and let me get in, if you dropped the spade and let me pick it up, you vacate and let me occupy, then I could give you a rest. You get out and I get in. Shared in service to others transferring good, treating others.
Oscar Wilde summed up the normal common view of people like this: “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions. Their lives a mimicry.” And when their lives basically stop sharing they go selfish like a shellfish from where the word selfish comes, unfortunately, as Ben Franklin noted: “Some people die at 25 and aren’t buried until 75.
LikeLike
September 27, 2015 at 6:54 am
As an aside, tonight across North and South America the annual Super moon takes place. Closer to earth by 42,108km (26,164mi)it will appear 30% brighter than usual. In addition this year will see a total lunar eclipse. Also called the Blood Moon, the moon turns a deep rusty red, due to sunlight being scattered by the Earth’s atmosphere. The last total eclipse occurred in 1982; the next one will occur in 2033.
The region of visibility for Sunday’s blood-moon lunar eclipse will encompass more than half of our planet. Nearly 1 billion people in the Western Hemisphere, nearly 1.5 billion throughout much of Europe and Africa and perhaps another 500 million in western Asia will be able to watch as the Harvest Full Moon becomes a shadow of its former self and morphs into a glowing coppery ball. The supermoon eclipse will last 1 hour and 11 minutes, and will be visible to North and South America, Europe, Africa, and parts of West Asia and the eastern Pacific, according to NASA. Weather permitting, the supermoon will be visible after nightfall, and the eclipse will cast it into shadow beginning at 8:11 p.m. ET. (5:11pm PST) The total eclipse starts at 10:11 p.m. ET, (7:11pm PST) peaking at 10:47 p.m. ET. (7:47pm PST)
LikeLike
September 27, 2015 at 11:38 am
Wow! Loved the quotes. Beautiful stuff.
I’m not sure I understand the term “objective morality” in religion.
I’m always referring to “scientific objectivity”, that is, things which can be confirmed by any observer. Objective truth or objective fact would be the opposite of subjective opinion.
The practical problem is that, if I am trying to convince someone that slavery, or the mistreatment of women, is morally bad, then I need to appeal to something other than my unsubstantiated personal opinion. I have to appeal to something which the person I am trying to convince can confirm for himself.
And if it convinces him then it will convince others. And when enough are convinced, then the rule is changed: we abolish slavery, we outlaw female abuses. That is how morality progresses.
To be convincing, it must be true in objective reality. For example, the cup of water for the man dying of thirst. No one can argue that the need for water is objectively real. And, while life is good that which sustains life is good.
It is not a question of subjective thirst, but rather that the science of medicine objectively confirms a need for water in order to live.
LikeLike
September 27, 2015 at 3:33 pm
I believe that Objective morality in religion presumes a Moral Giver, God, Belief is the premise and all conclusions that flow thereafter become indisputable truths from a true premise. A believer may be able to explain it better than that.
LikeLike
September 27, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Seems that would depend upon the reliability of the communication link. For example, there are significant differences between the rules in the OT and those in the NT. And then Peter and Paul disagreed on matters like dietary rules and circumcision when the Gentiles were being converted.
Gods rules appear to evolve just as man’s rules do. Which is good. The Episcopalians, for example, allowed Gene Robinson to remain a Bishop though he was openly homosexual.
My impression is that Judaism also has both an orthodox and reformed version, and many of the OT writings have evolved through Rabbinical interpretation.
LikeLike
September 28, 2015 at 2:21 pm
Randy,
It was not a ‘long monologue!’ Read some of these ‘novels’ for posts and then state that again!
Also,I was not the one saying you were off topic if you read the posts. It was the OWNER of this site- not me as he said you were off topic!!! You have ADD!
I asked if you could start a thread(I will be there too!) on Universalism which is an old time worn doctrine refuted by Hebrew and Greek.
That’s my poster name. OK I will just put farmer Davis. I can see you care not for them ol’ credentialed posters. Seems like I was in the Appalachians after reading that comment. All them thar doktors are all a bunch of college boys don’t know nothing neither putting that dr in frunt of their name! lol
LikeLike
September 29, 2015 at 4:17 am
Davis, and Jason
The root of this misunderstanding is that Jason and you do not see a connection between Compatibilism, Universalism, and Open Theism.
I will try to make a very quick connection so you two will see why I brought those subjects up on this post.
Compatibilism is the idea that free will and determinism are compatible – that they are not logically inconsistent. Jason’s post does a decent job of pointing out that combatibilism is not logical by presenting a question about how it is we could be responsible for our sin, if our sins come from a source outside our personal free will.
The compatibilists can mince words all they want and free will and determinism will still always be logically inconsistent. Immanuel Kant called combatibilism “wretched subterfuge” and “petty word-juggerly.”
Kant was right. One cannot logically believe in true free will and at the same time believe the future is determined. Combatibilism is just a very poor attempt to patch over the logical inconsistencies of Arminianism.
Open Theism teaches that the future is not determined. The future is fluid. No one, not even God, knows every detail of the future because it is not yet determined. Now, at first glance, this concept seems to impugn upon the sovereignty and omnipotence of God. I have already taken up too much space, so just let me categorically state, without explanation, that Open Theism doe not diminish either God’s sovereignty or His omnipotence. Open Theism greatly magnifies each.
We humans are creating our future. At the same time, God will shepherd all of His lost sheep back to the narrow road. Universalism is also true.
Most modern Christians balk at Open Theism and Universalism because at first glance both concepts seem inconsistent with their ideas about who God is, and both concepts run contrary to much of what they have been taught.
It takes much more than a glance to understand either subject, but if one does embrace and properly understand Open Theism and Universalism, the logical problems pointed to by combatibilim are solved..
If one does understand them, then Scripture becomes exceedingly more logical, and suddenly all the seemingly contradictory proof texts used by Arminians versus Calvinsts are reconciled. Furthermore, God is shown to be even more, exceedingly more, omnipotent and glorious.
No, you are 100% wrong about Universalism being an old cast off rug. You have surely learned such a false conclusion by listening to those Christians who are intellectually weak. Universalism is not “an old time worn doctrine refuted by Hebrew and Greek.” That is not even close. Have you even heard of Thomas Allin (Christ Triumphant?) He was a Hebrew and Greek scholar of the highest caliber. I could name dozens of first rate Hebrew and Greek scholars, alive and passed, all of whom testify that Greek and Hebrew are the strongest reasons to believe in Universalism and Open Theism.
In short, combatibilism is illogical and to correctly answer the problem posed by combatibilism (and Jason’s post) one must embrace Universalism and Open Theism.
Randy
LikeLike
September 29, 2015 at 11:25 am
I do NOT and NEVER have employed ‘pigeon’ language studies!!! I use the best and most reliable lexicons Gk./Heb. to determine each and every word I study. I use sometimes 12 different lexicons to research one word. I takes a great of my time, but it’s the Word. I carefully examine context as well as grammar to make determinations regardless of what I want to believe.
Jason is fully correct in that the doctrine of U is very “weak. ” As to Universalism, I think, subliminally some can’t accept ‘eternal judgment’ so they find or are attracted to verses or they tamper with Greek/Hebrew words like ‘eternity’- everlasting’ that seem to imply everlasting or without cessation and rewrite those word definitions so as to negate a teaching that they eschew. This relieves them or the Universalist of their inner most feelings of ‘compassion’ for the sinner’s ultimate destiny(as Jesus said It would have been “…good if he [Judas] had never been born…” this profound statement clearly refutes Universalism -think about it ) or repugnancy of their clearly presented fate in Scripture – thus those deep seated feelings relative to such a supposed ‘cruel’ God Who would allow or be responsible for that kind of a doctrine are psychologically assuaged. ‘Temp judgment’ so much better. Whew!
Sorry, but we do not control the destiny of others nor do we have anything to do with the eternal fate of those who reject Christ. Regardless of what we think or feel does not matter it is God’s universe from beginning to end! It stands at the end of all things and after entrance into the eternal ages of ages. See and note context Rev. 21 -22. Rev.21:8 ;27(the Greek structure/grammar shows permanence here-its the “ones having become abominable” that is perfect tense- their state is complete or permanent-done no change ever! PERFECT TENSE!!! why can’t you see this and follow the original language- take your ‘Universal glasses ‘ off-“burning” is present tense it will always be present-Rev.20:10); 22:11;15
Any scholar who believes in Universalism either has to slant the original languages or is self- deceived. One scholar told a professor of mine when he reads the Bible he ‘puts his Methodist glasses on.’ Another words he slants his Greek or Hebrew to coincide with his denominational doctrine, and the pet teachings he prefers.
LikeLike
September 29, 2015 at 12:09 pm
If the subconscious mind as it interacts with the conscious mind was understood(most don’t) and how it works then questions of the will,etc., are greatly simplified. But, it mostly will not be accepted -I fully understand-as some like to complicate and then elucidate.
Two phases of one mind.
Clinical hypnosis(a greatly misunderstood subject)shows us how the two minds as ‘one’ works.
The Subconscious mind is neutral;non specific and non judgmental. It is inductive. It will do whatever it is impressed with. It’s like the screen on your computer. The SC responds to faith, repetition and expectancy.
It is like the ‘ground’ and thoughts are like ‘seeds’ said Jesus. The ground is neutral it will accept any seed and cause it to grow.
The Conscious mind weighs; reasons; decides; ponders; judges and analyzes. It is deductive. It is the’ keyboard.’ that causes the computer SC to operate and display- good or bad – on the screen (your life as it were) what was typed in.
Your mind creates in the form of; events; conditions and circumstances.
‘Reap in your life what you sow in your mind.’ Galatians 6:7-9 ‘As you think in your SC(“heart”) so will your life be.’ Proverbs 23:7 a ‘ No respect of persons’- all minds as to the mental mechanism work alike.
Three phases or areas of the mind.
What you think you create.
What you imagine you become.
(Einstein said this is our most important primal facility)
What you feel you attract.
Scripture says, ‘Man was made in the image and likeness of God.’ Mental likeness; spiritual likeness. Heb. Since the fall this faculty has been greatly misused by many to say the least!
LikeLike
September 29, 2015 at 7:29 pm
Randy,
Please explain how Open Theism and Universalism can be reconciled to Scripture given Yahshua’s/Jesus’ testimony in John 8:21-59.
“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
– Frank
LikeLike
September 30, 2015 at 11:03 am
Frank,
Good choice of scripture with your question. The way the Greek is constructed it shows that probation to accept Christ is on earth only! When one dies in their ‘own sins’ it is permanent. “As a tree falls there shall it lie “as Solomon said.
“I said therefore to you that you will die IN all the sins of you if indeed you do not believe that I AM [no ‘he’ here in Gk. He is saying He is the “I AM that I AM”– ‘to be’ or ‘will become’ i.e. ‘become a man’- Gen.;3:15 “her seed”; Jn.1:1;14 in Exodus 3:14 ] you will die in the sins of you.” Gk.
Once one dies their sins remain with them forever as Jesus was saying in the Greek and they will be judged at the White Throne Judgment Rev.20:11-15
Where it says, “And if anyone was not found having been written [Gk. perfect tense] in the book of life they were cast into the lake of fire.”v.15
This means that having one’s name in the book of life is a past completed act having present permanent results. It’s never deleted. When converted while on earth their names were permanently written in the book of life while they were on earth ONLY-no future chance for anyone’s names to be added in the afterlife.
LikeLike
September 30, 2015 at 11:27 am
Davis,
Indeed as He said, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22:14)
LikeLike
September 30, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Hi Frank,
You asked me:
Please explain how Open Theism and Universalism can be reconciled to Scripture given Yahshua’s/Jesus’ testimony in John 8:21-59.
“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
First, I do not consider myself an expert on Universalism. I have been convinced by those who are experts. My favorite book on the subject is Thomas Allin’s “Christ Triumphant.” One modern expert is Keith DeRose who is a Philosophy professor at Yale. He has a website about Universalism at: http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm
However, in an attempt to answer your question. Some experts would say your question fits under the “doctrine of further chance.” Most modern Christian groups claim that once we die, we have no more chance to accept Jesus. However, there is no good Scriptural reason to believe that. Ask those who believe that for Scripture and they cite Hebrews 9:27: “..it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” (Hebrews 9:27) Ok, after we die there is judgment. I agree. But, that does not insist the judgment will be immediately after we die, nor does it insist the sentence for anyone will be “permanently guilty.” It means there will be judgment. That verse does not say some will spend an eternity in Hell.
I think 1 Peter 4:18-20 is much more on point to the question of whether death brings an end to our chance to accept Jesus. In that passage, we are told Jesus “made proclamation to the spirits now in prison..” Most commentators say that means that Jesus went to hell and preached to the lost spirits in that awful place. Why did Jesus go to hell to preach to the lost? Surely it was to offer them salvation. Search scripture for yourself, or google “Why does death end our chance for salvation?” and I think you might agree there is not a good argument, nor clear Scripture, to believe death ends our chance for salvation. It is tradition, not truth.
The book of John also says:
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” Now we know that Jesus was lifted up from the earth. He was lifted up on the cross, and 40 days later, he was lifted up to heaven (Acts 1:9-11). I think we should believe the second half of the verse where Jesus said, that He will “draw all men to Myself.” That verse does not say Jesus would offer all men the opportunity to accept His gift of salvation. Jesus said, quite clearly, that He will draw all men to Himself.
Consider 1 Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” We all will die, right? The second half of the verse says all men will be made alive in Christ.
As I mentioned earlier, there are more than 200 verses and passages that teach that all men will be saved. Universalism is not a weak knee hope, it is what the Bible teaches, over and over again. Study it for yourself. Dial up DeRose’s web site and spend an hour with it.
Randy
LikeLike
September 30, 2015 at 11:18 pm
Randy,
I appreciate your mindful response to my inquiry. As we are talking about Messiah and how He views us I think it best for us to listen carefully to His own words for He is our One True Authority.
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” (Matthew 7:7-8)
“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew 7:12-14)
“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then you will know them by their fruit. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’ Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and does them, will be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rains fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rains fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell–and great was its fall.” (Matthew 7:18-27)
For the gospel has for this purpose been preached in their lifetimes even to those who are dead (in their sins), that though they are judged in the flesh as men [Romans 6:17-23], they may live in the spirit (be resurrected to eternal life) according to the will of God [John 3:16]. (1 Peter 4:6)
For it is time for judgment to begin from the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? AND IF IT IS WITH DIFFICULTY THAT THE RIGHTEOUS IS SAVED, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE GODLESS MAN AND THE SINNER? Therefore, those also who suffer according to the will of God shall entrust their souls to a faithful Creator in doing what is right. (1 Peter 4:17-19)
“Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;” (Isaiah 46:9-10)
LikeLike
October 1, 2015 at 5:14 am
An urgent message which defines Messiah’s Salvation:
LikeLike
October 1, 2015 at 5:28 am
Well, if I die and discover that a supernatural creator actually does exist, and Peter asks for my ticket, I plan to say “I believe Jesus has already covered the price of admission for me”. And if Peter doesn’t get it, I’ll send him to Paul, who surely will.
LikeLike
October 1, 2015 at 11:39 am
Sorry Marv’ it doesn’t work that way. “Today is the day of salvation” or while on earth. Amos said to ‘Prepare to meet God’ while living on this earth now.
To gamble on eternity is foolish. Even if there is .00000000000000000000001 chance the Bible and Jesus are correct-it is worth accepting Jesus now. It’s free and no works required. The ‘Roman road’: Romans 3:23; 6:23;10:8-17
LikeLike
October 1, 2015 at 12:44 pm
Well, I’m relying on the assumption that if God does exist that He is not going to be a jerk about such technicalities.
LikeLike
October 1, 2015 at 12:49 pm
Randy,
Peter says when Jesus died on the cross his spirit went to hades(unseen world Gk.). It is divided into two areas- one the-place of torment’ and the other ‘paradise.’ Luke 16:19-31
This or the paradise area is where all OT saints except Moses; Enoch and Elijah, went at death that were believers of the coming messiah or savior. When Jesus finally made the great sacrifice foreshown in those animal sacrifices as a ‘living motion picture’ for the Jews He in spirit went to the paradise area of hades to “announce” their ‘captivity’ (they were called “prisoners of hope” in the Psalm) had come to an end. He did NOT preach to anyone to get them to be saved as the Gk. word for ‘preach’ (we get our word “evangelize” from this word) so as to convert is not used by Peter, but the simple word to ‘announce’ or make a proclamation.
It was directed to those who were ‘disobedient’ during the time of Noah. They were the spirits of the “sons of God” in Gen.6 who left the teachings of Seth (Gen.5) who got them from Adam (called the “son of God” by Luke-so these believers in Gen.6 were called the ” sons of God”)and went into apostasy(“the way of Cain” Jude) by uniting with the Canaanites’ doctrines and their females who were noted for their ‘beauty’ at that time.
Frank answered you and as usual did a very good job on ll Peter 4: 6 already. Verse 5 is ‘dead’ ones nekroi. There are those Paul says ‘are dead[in sins] while they live.’ the dead Rev.20 :11-20. the ‘dead ones’ Gk. or dead in sins.
They were as believers “disobedient” as Peter says. ll Peter 2:3:18-22 So it was a merciful grand ‘announcement’ that even they were going up to heaven or the new paradise even though that had been ‘disobedient ‘believers in their past lives on earth. He or Jesus ‘led or conducted captivity captive’ to heaven Eph.2:7-12. Heb. 2:10 “…bringing many sons or believers to glory…’
Then you say Jesus said,’ I will draw all men or people to myself.’ True. But not all in every generation will yield to that ‘drawing’ to Himself. John called some the “children of the devil.” Three times in Romans 1 Paul says God “gave them up” concerning the wicked. Paul said some were “past feeling.” Some he said had’ no conscience’ whatsoever.
‘Drawing’ doesn’t mean acceptance or Christ would have said so. Some were ‘from beneath.’
“Then He will also say to those on his left hand ,Depart from Me, you cursed[‘those being cursed’ perfect tense Gk. or forever never to have the curse lifted ever!!!], into the everlasting fire prepared [perfect tense it was prepared forever and ever and will forever torment – perfect tense permanent results] for the devil and his angels[eternal punishment was never meant for man, but he goes there because of his rejection of God and Christ]… And these will go away into everlasting[endless] punishment ,but the righteous into eternal [same Gk. word ‘endless’ as used for punishment or ‘severance’ cutting off from God is used for the righteous ‘eternal’ state] life. ” Matt.7:23;13:40; 25:41;47; Dan.12:2; ll Peter 2:4
LikeLike
October 1, 2015 at 1:14 pm
http://www.letusreason.org/Curren31.htm
LikeLike
October 1, 2015 at 1:15 pm
Marv,
Please read the New Testament.
LikeLike
October 1, 2015 at 1:56 pm
Been there, done that. And I kneeled many times at the alter to accept salvation. My parents were Salvation Army officers and were stationed as several different churches during my childhood.
After my father got involved with another woman, and went to jail for threatening her, and after release shot her and himself, I started questioning my beliefs.
One of my conclusions was that there was nothing anyone could do in a finite time on earth that could justify being tortured for eternity. Such a God could not, must not, exist.
However, I did appreciate the moral sense that was instilled in me by a Christian upbringing. And I appreciate the Unitarian Universalists who maintain the church experience for those who cannot recite the apostle’s creed.
My mother moved in with me after her hip replacement. She ended up in the Methodist church, so I take her there on Sunday’s.
LikeLike
October 1, 2015 at 5:24 pm
Marvin:
I am moved with compassion by your story. It must be a trauma so difficult to deal with and that will never end in your memory.
I am perplexed however by your statement…..nothing anyone could do in a finite time on earth that could justify being tortured for eternity…..I cannot wrap my head around the statement that ……..nothing……. could justify being tortured for eternity….I cannot really understand that conclusion based on what happened.
I suppose if you said that nothing apart from such tragedies could …..justify torture for eternity….. that might indicate your red line but I am not clearly understanding what you mean about this.
Can you please expand on this statement a little more about what you really mean?
Thanks.
Leo
LikeLike
October 1, 2015 at 6:06 pm
What is the point of penalty? What is its purpose? What do we wish to accomplish by taking these actions?
I faced that issue under two different circumstances. The first I’ve already explained. My father’s death raised the question of how any eternal torture could possibly be justified.
The second was in college. In my third year at Richmond Professional Institute (now VCU), after coming in 3rd out of 4 running for Student Government president, I was appointed Chairman of the Student Honor Court.
Like many other Honor Courts, there was just one penalty, expulsion. And this made a lot of people unwilling to turn in a student for lying, cheating, or stealing. We had one case where the Concert and Dance Committee approached me about a couple who had stolen one of the mirror balls. The two students had returned the stolen property. So the Committee did not want them expelled. I told them that if they turned them in to me that we would have to expel them. So they didn’t, and I didn’t.
Anyway, over the summer I had to come up with a student orientation to the Honor System for the incoming freshmen. While trying to find the best way to explain it, I ran across Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted”.
The rationale behind our civil and criminal system of justice is to protect rights.
The reason why we enforced rules against lying, cheating, and stealing was to protect the rights of the person who is lied to, stolen from, or cheated.
When a student is found guilty we would want to do these things: (A) Repair the harm if feasible: restore the truth, return or replace stolen property, zero any test score involving cheating. (B) Do what is reasonably necessary to correct future behavior by the offender. (C) Protect the community against the risk of further harm to their rights. And, here’s the kicker, (D) Do no more than is reasonably necessary to accomplish (A), (B), and (C).
Because we have clear goals for our penalty, we can tailor the penalty to meet those goals: repair, correct, protect and do nothing beyond that. We can justify this penalty because it protects the rights of the victim, the offender, and the community. And that is what justice is, a balancing of rights.
So that is how a system of justice works. And that brings us to the question, “What is the purpose of eternal torment?” What does God intend to accomplish? Or, more specifically, what Good does God intend to accomplish?
LikeLike
October 2, 2015 at 3:34 am
Hi Marvin,
You mentioned that you questioned your faith when your father acted unchristian. I remember a preacher in my youth, a real character, who used to tell us “Don’t look at me, you will be disappointed. Keep your eyes on Jesus.”
There really is a God, Marvin. I am absolutely convinced of that. You are right, the true God of the universe will not send anyone to an eternal blast furnace. If you are interested, read the Keith DeRose link I posted at #73 above. DeRose is an extremely bright and educated professor at Yale who has studied the fields of apologetics and Universalism. He is a very convinced and convincing Christian who you might want to study.
You are on this site, I assume, because you are still interested in Spiritual matters. If you want my two cents – study the field of apologetics. It might convince you, as it did me, that there really is a loving Creator who has revealed himself through the Bible.
Randy
LikeLike
October 2, 2015 at 3:50 am
Davis,
Your attempts to use basic Lexicon Greek and Hebrew is just not convincing. I do not mean to insult you, but most Bible students know how to use a Lexicon, Concordance, Interlinear Bibles, multiple translations, etc.
What I do know is that very sincere and very educated Greek and Hebrew scholars do not agree with you. Even most of the Hebrew and Greek scholars who are on the same side you are arguing do not usually try to go to the original languages to make their arguments about eternal damnation. They don’t do that because they know the Hebrew and Greek just doesn’t support them. They know, for instance, that the words translated into English as “eternal” do not mean the same thing as our English word “eternal”. Instead, the experts on your side make other arguments based upon what they consider a “full reading” of all of Scripture.
Randy
LikeLike
October 2, 2015 at 4:11 am
“Spiritual” to me means “having to do with our attitude about things”. For example, someone can do the right thing out of a spirit of resentful obligation or in the spirit of joyful service.
Perhaps the key purpose of Religion is to help us feel good about being good and doing good. This is why we sing, study, and preach to each other.
But I try not to believe in ghostly spirits or supernatural creators. To me, God is a creation of the human mind.
And I prefer to believe in death after life, rather than that anyone should be tortured for eternity in Hell.
One of the moments when I was proudest of my Unitarian Universalist church was when the young people put on a program for the adults. Each youth stood up and described a different belief that people had about what happens after you die. One spoke of Heaven and Hell. One spoke of reincarnation. One spoke of death as the end of life. And I think there were two or three others as well. (The UU is pretty much “ecumenical central”).
LikeLike
October 2, 2015 at 4:22 am
Frank,
After I gave you several verses which quite clearly say that Christ will save all men, you answered me by saying:
“As we are talking about Messiah and how He views us I think it best for us to listen carefully to His own words for He is our One True Authority.”
Then you quoted multiple passages that, in your opinion, point to eternal hell for those who do not accept Christ before they die.
Well, two comments. First, I agree, we need to listen to Jesus. We need to listen to all He said about the matter and try to reconcile His statements. I have done that, and so have you. We have each sincerely arrived at two completely opposite conclusions about what Jesus meant.
Second, although this is not the space to answer all your comments, let me just comment about one “proof text’ you provided. You quoted Matthew 7-18-27 which includes the statement by Jesus “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven”.
That is a good proof text for your side of this. It does not negate the very direct verses which I have provided (for instance 1 Tim. 4:10 and 1 Cor. 15:22) but it is a good point that I will answer soon.
In that post, (#74) you capitalized the phrase “DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.” (vs.23) I would point out that Jesus at one point said to Peter; “Get behind me, Satan, for you are not setting your mind on God’s interest, but man’s”. (Mark 8:33)
As I said, all Scripture must be reconciled, right? In my opinion, and I am certainly not anywhere near alone, a correct reconciliation of all of Scripture proves, beyond any doubt in my mind, that God will eventually save all men. Christ came to save all, and He will be completely successful.
Randy
LikeLike
October 2, 2015 at 10:32 am
Randy,
Be advised you are mistaken in thinking it was I who capitalized “DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.” When a direct quote of Old Testament Scripture is recorded in the New Testament capital letters are used as an indication of this. This particular Scripture originates in Psalm 6:8: Depart from me, all you who do iniquity, for YHWH has heard the voice of my weeping.
As you suggested, I did go to DeRose’s website and spent considerable time reading his case for Universalism. I found it disoriented, verbose, and lacking context & cohesion. Just as you, I am not convinced.
I offer you a suggestion. Read the article in post # 80 by Let Us Reason Ministries which does convince me through ample Scriptural evidence presented succinctly and cogently with independent corroboration that Universalism is in fact pernicious heresy against God’s Word.
Messiah came in His First Advent to OFFER salvation [Psalm 23; John 10:7-19 KJV] “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” (John 10:9 KJV): The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because YHWH hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of YHWH, (Isaiah 61:1-2a KJV) [Luke 4:13-32 KJV]. At His Second Coming He will judge righteously the conscious decision people made to either accept or reject that offer: “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last [Revelation 19:1-6 KJV].” (Revelation 22:12-13 KJV)
LikeLike
October 2, 2015 at 11:45 am
Randy,
Please! I keep thinking you are living in the Appalachian foot hills the way you post-the things you say it’s just shocking to me. It’s simply the only correct method of researching Greek, for example, is by using lexicons, word studies, studying classical Greek, Greek word usage in the Septuagint, etc. ,etc. I have dedicated my life to such studies. You brush it aside or Greek/Hebrew studies because you do not have real comprehension or understanding of this whole thing.
Now give me one- to start – Hebrew and Greek scholar I can write to about this subject. I will post his or her response.
No amount of presentation from any source will convince someone who is affixed for ,whatever reason, on a heretical doctrine-it is for those who are still open or really wish to know or love the truth. As Peter says they or those affirming’ false doctrine’ as you are holding ‘… twist or ‘torture’ the scriptures to their own destruction.’ No amount of Hebrew or Greek will deflect that. As you well know Peter is writing about men who knew Greek then!
You do not understand the force of the perfect tense in Greek. No amount of cajoling, pleading, soft talk or language studies will convince you. Paul said to give give
Also, Dr. Henry Thayer, a Greek scholar did not affirm the historic doctrines of the church, but he did carefully describe without comment or bias what the teachings were or the Greek word meanings accurately in his lexicon which I have studied since ’63. So what a scholar personally believes and what He publishes in a lexicon are two different things.
Same even with lawyers. A friend met a lawyer who told her he got 12 men off for murder. All privately confessed they were guilty, but as a defense lawyer his focus was on case facts and laws presented in such a way as to create doubt ,etc. He was just doing his job right or wrong defending his client. His personal feelings-he was depressed- were laid aside.
Paul said these people who have false doctrine have as it says in Greek a ‘bend’ in their minds. Sorry R still going to use it. There is a ‘deflecting bend’ in your mind and no amount of ENGLISH Scriptures much less Hebrew or Greek will sink in at all!
Your third admonition.
Where is your English Scripture that very clearly says even one person will repent in hell and be saved,and it not contradict the body of Scripture. Sites promulgating the false doctrine of ‘restoration’ indicating even Judas(in spite of what Jesus said, ‘It would have been good if he would never had been born!!!) and Satan will be saved!!! That’s a good one to try and prove! One Scripture? ‘Sorry Lord I kinda’ screwed up a little, but I am saved now I repent. ‘No more Satan persona! My ex demons feel that same way.
‘The beast(antichrist), false prophet and myself don’t like that lake of fire just way too hot!’ Rev.20:10
How do you know God is forever? That the righteous live forever? Scripture?
Can you please explain the following Scriptures , as you and your fellow Universalists all talk about the ‘end’ and these Scriptures are set at the ‘end of all things.’ Rev.21:8;27;22:11;14 with 15; 19.
LikeLike
October 2, 2015 at 3:11 pm
Marvin: Your post # 84
I think your explanation of Justice is more appropriate than the actual way the justice system in our society works. The Justice system actually applies their own sense of ETERNAL justice for life to the mix which is over and above ….(D) Do no more than is reasonably necessary to accomplish (A), (B), and (C)…… In the current Justice System there is the …record…that one must wear around their neck for the rest of their life that disqualifies them from many employment opportunities.
People like Luis Rivera are being locked out of the formal workforce forever thanks to youthful mistakes. “I made the mistake of trusting,” Rivera says now, shrugging. “I explained to this guy that I have a record from 1990-something. But I explained that I paid the price. I’m clean—gimme a chance. He gave me his word of honor that he would not tell.” But word travels fast when you’re an ex-con. Suddenly, the upscale building at which Rivera had a part time job and on which he hoped to build a future stopped giving him shifts.
“So I made a phone call and asked to speak to them,” he explains. He says his boss told him, “We found out you have a record. And you can’t work here, due to the fact that this is a fancy place—anything could happen.”
At age 22, Rivera says, he committed a burglary in the Bronx. He was a lousy criminal and soon got caught. The judge didn’t make him serve any time, just released him to his parents’ custody and gave him five years of probation. Within two years, he’d earned release from probation as well. But the conviction has nonetheless stalked him ever since. “Twenty years later, it’s still there.”
THE BOXED IN EFFECT:
In most formal circumstances, offenders are legally obliged to declare a conviction when asked, until it becomes “spent”: currently this takes seven years for sentences of up to six months and a decade for sentences of up to 2.5 years. Sentences longer than that are never spent. This may entail disclosing a conviction to employers, insurers, landlords, financial services providers, education institutions, visa and adoption agencies and others.
On top of this, employers can request a standard criminal record check—where convictions show up for life—for certain jobs within the health, financial, security and legal sectors. This also includes cautions, which are given without trial when the offender accepts responsibility for a minor offence such as writing graffiti. Jobs involving working with children or vulnerable adults require an enhanced criminal record check, which includes all convictions, cautions and any other information held by police forces that is considered “relevant,” including, potentially, crimes of which a person has been a victim and occasions when officers have visited an individual’s address.
In some cases, a criminal record is an absolute bar to an application. Those convicted of certain sexual offences are blocked completely from adopting, and some violent or sexual offenders are prevented from working with children and vulnerable adults—the government’s Disclosure and Barring Service operates a list of people banned from these positions. In other professions, regulatory bodies have their own rules, which means that anyone who has received a custodial or suspended sentence can generally not become a doctor, lawyer or accountant, among other things.
Even in unregulated professions finding work can be difficult with a conviction. Employers and others are legally entitled to discriminate against an applicant on the grounds of an unspent conviction, regardless of its relevance to the position.
And this system operates in deemed Godly fashion in so called countries founded on Christian principles, the USA, Canada and the UK. According to a National Institute of Justice article, nearly one-third of American adults have been arrested by age 23. About 95 million Americans. As well, a 2011 National Employment Law Project study found the 65 million Americans who have criminal records encountered barriers to obtaining work because employers use background checks when hiring.
LikeLike
October 3, 2015 at 6:50 am
Davis,
I think it is curious that the subject of “Comatibilism” has generated nearly a hundred responses. Since Combatibility is a technical word used by trained Philosophers, I doubt if most responding had before even heard of the word.
🙂
Davis, you have called me a product of the Appalachian mountains two or three times. I confess, though I have never lived there. My grandfather on my mother’s side was from there and he was the best man I have ever known.
We have been throwing barbs at each other for a few thousand words, and I think it is time to call a truce. So, get the last word in if you want, but I have made all the points I want to make, at least for this topic.
My original point was, and is: Compatibilism is the idea that free will is compatible with determinism. I believe, and many of the greatest scholars of Philosophy insist, Combatibilism is illogical. (This is not to in any way say Jason’s post is irrelevant or illogical. Jason’s post is excellent.)
If one takes all of this another step, the questions of Universalism and Open Theism become not only relevant, but extremely relevant. I tried to introduce those two subjects into this conversation.
Combatibilism, at its base is really an argument between the Calvinists and the Arminians. Both fields of thought, in the final analysis, lead to illogical conclusions and conflict of Scripture, However, there is a third field of thought that leads to logical conclusions as well as great reconciliation of Scripture – Universalism combined with Open Theism. Neither are heresy. Universalism was taught in the earliest churches, and it is now taught by many very dedicated fundamentalist Christians.
I believe in Open Theism and Universalism and I have read great scholars who also believe in each. Furthermore, I believe the Bible is divinely inspired, and I read it daily and that the only way to salvation is through Jesus.
So, peace, and good will.
Randy
LikeLike
October 3, 2015 at 9:35 am
Because “freedom from causation” cannot exist, the word “free” in free will can never imply freedom from causation.
Free will refers to someone choosing for themselves. The “free” in free will means free from subjugation to someone else’s will.
When Billy is a child, his mother tells him he cannot go out to play until he puts on his winter coat. Billy puts on the cumbersome coat, but does so against his will. When Bill is an adult, he will make these choices for himself (of his own free will), and live with the consequences.
One of the Boston Marathon bombers pulled a gun on a driver and forced him to assist in his escape. The driver was able to get away when they stopped for gas and contacted the police. Because the driver was forced against his will, he was not guilty of aiding a criminal escape.
This distinction between acting autonomously of our own free will as opposed to being forced to act against our will, is meaningful and relevant.
There are three imaginary freedoms which can never apply to free will: freedom from causation, freedom from oneself, and freedom from reality.
If the will were free from causation, then it could never effect its intent.
If the will were free from oneself, then it would be someone else’s will.
If the will were free from reality, then the will becomes only a wish within a dream.
There is no “freedom from everything” because that leaves you with nothing.
Therefore to be “free” means to be free from specific constraints.
For example, if I set a bird free from a cage, do I say it is not truly free because it is still subject to causation? No. And if the bird were actually free from causation, then what would happen when the bird flapped its wings? They could cause no reliable effect! Where would be the freedom in that?
Basically, free will means autonomy. It is freedom from others making your decisions for you or subjugating your will to theirs.
LikeLike
October 3, 2015 at 1:11 pm
…….When Billy is a child, his mother tells him he cannot go out to play until he puts on his winter coat. Billy puts on the cumbersome coat, but does so against his will. When Bill is an adult, he will make these choices for himself (of his own free will), and live with the consequences………
It is freedom from others making your decisions for you or subjugating your will to theirs.
I believe this view of free will is too narrow a definition.
Suppose in the above example when Billy becomes an adult and is faced with what to wear for a winters day would it not be just as possible for Billy to still come under the influence of his Mothers embedded demand he was subjected to in childhood. Presumably the old saying …..as Mother always said…..is not an idle adage and void of future influence.
By the same token after reading the message of Jesus: Matt 24:43 ………But understand this: if the homeowner had known what time the burglar would arrive, he would have locked his house (or motor vehicle as the case may be) or remained there to prevent the break-in. Be vigilant just like that……..
Now the reason for this example is because, in my own experience(and there are other, similar examples of scriptural interventions) there were times that I left the house with an unlocked door and the same with my car and the thought would come in the form of that massage. And on more than one occasion, regardless of how much of a hurry I was in or how short the period of time I would be away….the verse always came to my mind and inevitably I would return to the house or the vehicle and make sure the doors were locked.
Now perhaps you would say it was autonomous and I had the free will to heed the thought but I would not say that I had the free will when the thought would come because it would not come unless I left without locking the doors. I would not call that having free will autonomy. I could have decided not to heed that message and suffer the anxiety accordingly; I could even have found the burglar came in those few moments but while I would not call that example free will as you define it, I would neither class it as subjugation nor or burdensome.
LikeLike
October 3, 2015 at 2:17 pm
From the outside, it looks like there was a choice and that you made the choice. To put it another way, there was no one else there making the decision. It was authentically your own choice to go back and lock the door.
From the inside, you may have felt some acquired compulsion due to your religion or parental influence. But you had integrated that compulsion into “that which is you”.
There must have still been some uncertainty built in as well. You had not developed the habit of locking the house and the car when going out. But instead would sometimes walk away and have to return. So you were revisiting that decision and re-making it from time to time — always the same way since you said, “inevitably I would return to the house or the vehicle and make sure the doors were locked”.
In any case, it was you that chose to follow the advice of mom and scripture,
since no one else was there to compel you to do otherwise.
Back in the Christian church where I was raised, there was salvation and sanctification. Unlike a new convert, the sanctified person was more firm in Christ, and temptation had minimal influence. It was sort of like the temptation to smoke after quitting for a few days versus after a few years.
My point is that we form new habits based upon prior decisions, such that we no longer have to make the same decision again (with smoking, it was like really having to decide quite often for the first couple of weeks).
LikeLike
October 4, 2015 at 10:10 am
Dr H. Davis:
Gen: 4 Adam(knew Eve) made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
Do you think that the navel was then created for the next generation children and the next and the next and so on and so forth or did the navel evolve because life forces demanded such and such and thus continues much like the apparently useless appendix as well as other functional organs? But whether created or evolved did not the necessity take place at the genetic DNA? In Adam and Eve first or in Cain and Abel first. If Adam and Eve did not have a navel it must not have been embedded in their DNA. And no I did not stay awake at night dreaming up these questions.
LikeLike
October 4, 2015 at 10:13 am
Why did Moses leave out the fact that Cain and Abel had no sisters? Which leads me to THE AXIOM:
Aaaaaahhhh, the axiom!
LikeLike
October 4, 2015 at 10:28 am
Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians deals directly with the issue of God’s Will and how we become the Body of Messiah.
Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. … But one in the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. (1 Corinthians 12:3-12 NASB)
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 11:36 am
sono,
After he begot Seth ,the days of Adam were 800 years :and he begot sons and DAUGHTERS.” He lived anther 130 after this!
Because of longevity at that time large(God told Adam ‘dying you will eventually die’ Heb.) numbers of offspring were possible from the parents.
After the great flood and tilting of the axis is when, as we who accept the Biblical account know longevity became ’70 if by strength 80’s’ plus. Heb.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics went into effect so everything as well as man- after the fall -is wearing down.
Before the titling of the earth axis(about 14 degrees off) ,etc.; the electromagnetic field was very powerful and man was ‘enmeshed’ in this energy field which is very low now science saying it was much higher at one time. Also man created his own vitamin C. Yes, science tells us we have a 4 genes in the liver but GULO gene is now dormant and we can no longer create our own vitamin C -so vital to health, and longevity according to nutritional med studies which I research.
Some animals still manufacture their own C as well some birds, etc.
So Cain and Abel got his wife from one of those “daughters” of Adam.
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 11:41 am
http://www.hammernutrition.com/knowledge/humans-lack-the-ability-to-make-vitamin-c.278.html
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 12:04 pm
http://www.hammernutrition.com/knowledge/humans-lack-the-ability-to-make-vitamin-c.278.html
Sono,
I have already posted on that subject.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21153898/ns/health-health_care/t/scientists-may-have-found-appendixs-purpose/#.VhLETU3bJ9A
As to, for example, the appendix has no use is very archaic thinking. It goes back to when science had dubbed a legion of organs that were “vestigial” or left over from our supposed evolution, and were ‘useless’-which is still labeled a “theory.”
We now know that ALL organs in our bodies have a reason for being there. I have studied anatomy the 1960’s.
The Psalmist was correct, ‘…we are fearfully and wonderfully made.’
The Hebrew word “wonderfully” means ‘miraculously and remarkably.’
Just an in depth study of the microscopic nutritional system and how it utilizes nutrition in the body is absolutely mind boggling. It is so micro and deeply complex it amazes me even after all these years of studying med journals. I have researched this since around 1965. No haphazard by chance mechanism placed or constructed the human body. It was ‘designed.’
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 12:13 pm
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/07/what-do-tonsils-do/
Again, med drug oriented writers failed to understand these tonsils and adenoids were part of our lymphatic system-not “vestigial” or left over from ‘evolution’ which this writer does not delve into ; and sometimes need certain nutrients- if depleted for various reasons-and when properly supplied the tonsils and adenoids correct themselves in most cases.
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 1:06 pm
Davis:
After he begot Seth ,the days of Adam were 800 years :and he begot sons and DAUGHTERS.” He lived anther 130 after this!
Because of longevity at that time large(God told Adam ‘dying you will eventually die’ Heb.) numbers of offspring were possible from the parents.
Believers only quote science sometimes if it suits their belief but do not accept their findings on other matters?
For example science does say that the appendix apparently store beneficial bacteria in a safe house for digestion and renoculating colon attacked by pathogens…science says that there are other redundant circulation systems built into the human body and they also say that we did not have large longevity like living 800 years…you accept one part but not other parts; is this not simply selective pickings like selective biblical quoting? It seems to me yes.
For example:
Far from useless, the organ is actually a storehouse of beneficial bacteria that help us digest food (interactive digestive-system guide).
The appendix evolved for a much dirtier, parasite-plagued lifestyle than the one most people live in the developed world today, Parker said. But where diarrheal disease is common, for example, the appendix is apparently vital for repopulating intestines with helpful bacteria after an illness.
Another example of anatomy lagging behind lifestyle, according to Mount Sinai’s Laitman, is collateral circulation. Certain systems of veins and arteries ensure blood flow when the main paths are blocked or damaged.
The systems appear to be truly vestigial, at least for now.
Elbows, knees, and shoulders, for example, all have collateral circulation, Laitman said, but the heart and much of the brain don’t.
“Why would we adapt enormous redundancy in an elbow but not where it really matters?” Laitman said. “The answer is unsettling. When do we have strokes and heart attacks? Our 50s, 60s.
“When the blueprints for our species were being drawn up, nobody lived that long.”
The fact that our bodies evolved while humans lived short lives hunting and gathering is one key to understanding many “useless” body parts, Laitman said.
From an evolutionary viewpoint, we’ve been living in the modern manner for a relatively short time, he pointed out. “Our circumstances have changed a lot, but our bodies haven’t.”
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 1:13 pm
Dr. Jeffrey Laitman sources
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090730-spleen-vestigial-organs_2.html
and
http://www.mountsinai.org/profiles/jeffrey-t-laitman?id=0000072500001497218882
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 1:36 pm
Son,
Everything in the body is of use, but medo’s may not have proven it as of yet. There has been a consistent pattern in the literature of discoveries that have narrowed so called ‘vestigial’ organs down to in my view Zero!
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 2:17 pm
Davis:
My question remains why do you accept some science claims in some cases but not in others: when science says:
“When the blueprints for our species were being drawn up, nobody lived that long.”
You say that humans lived loooonnnngggg, like Adam, 800 years?
Life Span of Ancient Man:
It shows a random group of Neanderthals who lived 40,000 years ago with an average age of 35.
It then shows a group of adults that lived 2000 BC who lived to an average age of 38 years.
It then shows Iron age ()700 BC to 0) life spans with an average age of ~42 years
Finally it mentions middle ages (to 1000 AD with none living longer than 45 years
Kings from 1000 to 1600AD lived an average of ~49.5 years
Royal court
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 2:18 pm
Fundamentalists believe Adam lived over 800 years, and Seth 912, and Methuselah 969.
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 2:30 pm
Sono,
Another real blatant fallacy almost laughable is calling the tail bone(!) or coccyx useless or “vestigial.” Some ‘authorities’ still persist and it’s medievalism to it’s core.
There are 6 muscles that converge from the a ring -like bones of the pelvis edge to form an ‘anchor’ on the coccyx itself forming a round or bowl like shaped muscular floor of the pelvis itself .This is labeled the ‘pelvic diaphragm.’ The coccyx is’ incurved’ that has the attached pelvic diaphragm supports organs in the abdominal and pelvic cavities like the prostate, urinary bladder, uterus; rectum, and anus.
Serious herniation is avoided in a normal person due to this all important muscular support/coccyx. The vagina, anal aperture, urethra go through the pelvic diaphragm’s muscularity and gives a sphincter effect for these formations.
The coccyx shows none of the real characteristics of a tail!!!
At one time some 170 vestigial organs and body parts were labeled in this manner but now WELL informed scientists(and I have spoke to some of them one a geneticist from Johns Hopkins) know there are ZERO.
If one’s premise is correct so will the conclusion be. Start/finish one and the same actually.
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 3:57 pm
Click to access NAS%20The%20Scientific%20Evidence%20for%20Biblical%20Longevity.pdf
This man has studied the issue of pre flood longevity. I have researched aging and anti aging, but he focuses on the pre flood humans’ life spans given in the Bible.
As to a destructive event/s see : Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval by Immanuel Velikovsky, MD. Not saying I ,as given below, accept everything ,but his thoughts and research are of interest to me.
If I didn’t own my business I couldn’t do posting as I do. It’s loss of money if I don’t talk to doctors I am doing formulas for, for example. But, still I have to serve my clients and customers. My time is very limited or I could go into this and other subjects in great depth with notations ,etc. Another thing is I have always been a slow typist so this is a factor too! When I see my secretaries type up several pages in a very fast manner I realize how much time it takes me -compared to them-to do one or two pages!
Now, as to what I believe from science in brief! I was focused with just vestigial organs. I showed as a starter that once in the past there were over 100-170, now it’s down to zero by the informed.
All research and discovery from times back is really based on eclecticism. Just because someone lays out a discovery it does not mean we have to accept everything that person/s writes even though there are some accepted facts and truths offered. This is common even in science itself.I know I have read the literature.
This has nothing to do with ‘religion’ per se although it plays in evolutionary debate. Just because an anatomist says the coccyx (see my post on the coccyx-got tired of reading the false claims it’s of no use or it’s the remnants of a tail, even though it’s anatomical features and functions compared to that of a tail are NOT a match sorry etc.) was ‘evolved’ and was a ‘tail’ millions of years ago and now has become of ‘no use’ and ‘no reason’ for it’s existence in the body. I don’t have to agree with that, but I do agree on his/her diagrams and facts about this vital and important boney structure. Pick and choose. Sometimes the %’s are higher sometimes lower as to how much I will accept. It’s that way with all researchers in various fields of whom I know many.
The vestigial argument was used in the 1923 Scopes evolution trial. It would now be demolished as proof of evolution!!!
Science changes an it keeps some facts discards others over and over again down through the years. It’s really fairly new !!!
I read in one scholar journal it took 12 million years for thus and so to happen. Then I read from another work it took 34 million years! I million years is a great deal of time, but I soon learned it’s guess work or estimates. I look for the: it is probable; perhaps; might be; may have been ; could possibly be; it is guessed or estimated; We/I theorize; we/i think; etc, etc.
The bible is not a book od science ,but when ever it touches on such subjects it has always eventually proven correct.
Take for example it was the first ancient literary work that stated the earth was ’round.’ Heb. This went against all known ‘science’ then which believed the earth was flat to one degree or another.It stated the earth was ‘suspended on nothing’;Heb. that is, there was no visible means of support for the earth like an a very large elephant, gigantic turtle or an Atlas holding up the earth as was believed in ancient times.
Again,if we can focus it would save time.
LikeLike
October 5, 2015 at 6:06 pm
Homo naledi, most recent find may be the missing link to humans
The species, which has been named naledi, has been classified in the grouping, or genus, Homo, to which modern humans belong.
The researchers who made the find have not been able to find out how long ago these creatures lived – but the scientist who led the team, Prof Lee Berger, told BBC News that he believed they could be among the first of our kind (genus Homo) and could have lived in Africa up to three million years ago.
The oldest of the antediluvians listed in Genesis 5 was Methuselah who has become the epitome of longevity because he was reported to have lived 969 years. Noah was given an equally incredible age of 950 in Genesis 9:29.
There are three serious problems with the Genesis numbers: men do not live to be nine hundred years, men do not father children when they are over a century old, and why did they wait so long to have children?
All three of these problems disappear if we make two simple assumptions: the Septuagint (the ancient Greek version of Genesis) has the original numbers and each of the numbers has one decimal place in modern notation. The original Genesis numbers were not written in decimal notation. Instead the numbers were recorded in an archaic, pre-cuneiform, sign-value, Sumerian number system, similar in some ways to Roman numerals.
The fantastic stories about these men living over nine hundred years and not getting around to fathering their children until they had lived a century or two, are the result of an ancient mistranslation of the original numbers. Except for Noah, each young man fathered his first son during his late teens or early twenties, just as young men do today, and they lived into their seventies or early eighties. Noah lived to be 83 years old and Methuselah lived to be 85. The river flood of 2900 BC occurred when Noah was 48 years old and he had been king for ten years.
http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/index.html
LikeLike