Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David M. Payne · 06-03-2002, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FarSeeker:

In the passage I quoted from the Bible
(Deuteronomy 30:11-20) God is literally saying I am giving you these two choices, you are free to choose which one you want.

There are many things you are given in this life without being told, "you are given ___," but are expected to use what was given.

I'll admit you know how to dodge, but I think this only shows your lack of integrity. Especially as you didn't give a reasoned reply for rejecting the evidence.

You can take a mule to the water, but you can't make him drink.

[b]I�m not dodging anything, and here�s your reasoned reply. You didn�t make your case, pure and simple. In fact as you can see, one of your theist compatriots said that the free will argument isn�t in the bible. See the post I just made, reprinted here below. So are you right, or is he/she right? That�s the problem you theists face, too much ambiguity in your positions as far as what is meant by this or that biblical passage. Now what I said has no ambiguity, �And God gave man free will.� This is what it will take for you to get your �Gotcha� and more insults will not make your task any easier.

�You can take a theist to logic, but you can�t make him think�

Quote:

Originally posted by Gemma Therese:
<snip>
Ultimately, the only absolute freedom we have resides in our free will. And that freedom was given to us by our Creator, essentially, so that we might freely choose to love and serve Him. All other creatures serve Him out of exigency; by their very being and existence they witness to His power and His love, or reflect His glory and beauty in some way. Only to man has He given the power of freely choosing to love and serve Him. He has given us intellect and free will -- and this is the hallmark of man.
<snip>
In God's Love,

Gemma Therese

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
Gemma, where exactly in the bible is this �Free Will� argument of yours at?

David, where exactly did I make the claim that that "free will" argument appears in the Bible?
Gemma, I didn�t say you did, but that is what we hear here most of the time, so I assumed your source was the bible. Pardon me.

The concept of free will as you put it forth, isn�t in the Bible, is it?
No it's not. David, read my profile, It says Roman Catholic, not fundamentalist Christian.

OK Gemma, fair enough, I applaud you for admitting the truth, the free will argument isn�t in the bible. So lets take the obvious nest step, who made the free will doctrine up? Was it God? That is what you say in your post above, isn�t it? Where might we find his word on this, if not in the bible? If it was �created� or �discovered� by some saint or Pope etc, who was it, and did they get the argument directly from God and just pass it on to the rest of us? Or did it nebulously appear out of thin air one day a long time ago? Perhaps they come up with it to deflect the argument of Gods moral responsibility for /inability to prevent, evil, here:
�In a formulation of the problem attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC) (see Epicureanism), either God can prevent evil and chooses not to (and therefore is not good) or chooses to prevent it and cannot (and therefore is not all-powerful).� (From MS Encarta)
Can you site a source for this doctrine that has been used to excuse God from all evil done in his name?
I even more humbly await you enlightenment on this question. Hopefully you will be the first theist here to produce an authoritative reference for this doctrine.

David

DaveJes1979 · 06-06-2002, 03:49 AM

FarSeeker

Quote:

In the passage I quoted from the Bible
(Deuteronomy 30:11-20) God is literally saying I am giving you these two choices, you are free to choose which one you want.

Dave: no Calvinist would deny that we have two choices in view here. That does not imply that the will is non-contingent and metaphysically autonomous. Choices are made on the basis of the nature of the creature. The nature of the creature is not non-contingent of uncreated.

Wyrdsmyth

Quote:

Who sets up the proper rules of biblical exegesis?

Dave: the biblical authors themselves. That is why the author's intent and context rule. This is not a unique feature of the Bible - it is axiomatic to literary interpretation in general.

Dave G.

Wyrdsmyth · 06-06-2002, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveJes1979:
the biblical authors themselves. That is why the author's intent and context rule. This is not a unique feature of the Bible - it is axiomatic to literary interpretation in general.

Who is authorized to determine what the author's intent was, and what is proper context?

FarSeeker · 06-08-2002, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveJes1979:
Dave: no Calvinist would deny that we have two choices in view here. That does not imply that the will is non-contingent and metaphysically autonomous. Choices are made on the basis of the nature of the creature. The nature of the creature is not non-contingent of uncreated.

Dave G.

Sorry, I'm not a philosophy major, starting with:
Contingent: ...
5. in logic, true only with certain conditions or contexts; not always or necessarily true.
What do you mean?

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: FarSeeker ]

hal9000 · 06-16-2002, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
As this thread has gotten somewhat off track, I thought I would post these two essay links, the first by Bill Schultz, and the second by Don Morgan. I read them both when they were first published and found them to be excellent critiques of the bible and the God is good myth. <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god.html" target="_blank">Is God A criminal?</a> and; <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html" target="_blank">Bible Atrocities</a>

David

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

bump

FarSeeker · 06-19-2002, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
As this thread has gotten somewhat off track,
David

Well, the subject is a wide ranging one. As evidence is deamnded, discussion will broaden it.

BUT.... to the point.

1:
Already, let us try an experiment. How many of you accept DP’s claim that:

Wizardry, posted April 10, 2002 08:02 PM

Quote:

It’s not really an issue of “my morality” versus “your morality”. There is a pool of values that we share with other members of our society. That is the standard of morality to which we adhere under penalty from society.

*********
I would like a vote from all who have posted on this thread so far.
Do you agree with this opinion, or disagree?

David M. Payne · 06-25-2002, 06:33 PM

Quote:

by FarSeaker; Well, the subject is a wide ranging one. As evidence is demanded, discussion will broaden it.
BUT.... to the point.
1:
Already, let us try an experiment. How many of you accept DP�s claim that:

Quote:

By Wizardry, posted April 10, 2002 08:02 PM
It�s not really an issue of �my morality� versus �your morality�. There is a pool of values that we share with other members of our society. That is the standard of morality to which we adhere under penalty from society.

FS, this makes no sense. How can it be my claim if Wizardry made it?

FarSeeker · 06-28-2002, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
FS, this makes no sense. How can it be my claim if Wizardry made it?

OOPS! Sorry, the question should have been addressed to you (and others).

Alright, let us try that again. How many of you accept Wizardry’s claim that:

By Wizardry, posted April 10, 2002 08:02 PM

Quote:

It’s not really an issue of “my morality” versus “your morality”. There is a pool of values that we share with other members of our society. That is the standard of morality to which we adhere under penalty from society.

David M. Payne · 06-29-2002, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FarSeeker:
OOPS! Sorry, the question should have been addressed to you (and others).

Alright, let us try that again. How many of you accept Wizardry�s claim that: "It�s not really an issue of �my morality� versus �your morality�. There is a pool of values that we share with other members of our society. That is the standard of morality to which we adhere under penalty from society."

By Wizardry, posted April 10, 2002 08:02 PM

A nice concise point, and I agree with it.

David

Pomp · 06-29-2002, 05:41 PM

Works for me too.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-29-2002, 05:41 PM	#140
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Works for me too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.