User Tag List

Page 25 of 31 FirstFirst ... 1522232425262728 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 375 of 464

Thread: Does Open Theism Question/dispute the Omniscience of God

  1. #361
    BANNED Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,337
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 11,986 Times in 8,566 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    so choosing between which master you will be 'in bondage to' is 'free?'
    Sure.

    But that does sound like a false dichotomy.

    If a man is a slave to sin, he/she has no choice.
    That's a non sequitur.

    Romans 7:14
    Says nothing explicitly denying choice:

    For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
    Romans 7:14-‬16 NKJV

    If any man be in Christ, he/she is a new creation.
    Also says nothing to deny choice in a prior state.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 24th, 2018)

  3. #362
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,086
    Thanks
    523
    Thanked 913 Times in 626 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    244788
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I think it needs a more careful read. Choosing between vanilla and chocolate, for me, isn't 'free.' My desire is preprogrammed for vanilla. I'm not at all dissatisfied nor thinking I'm a constrained robot because my desire and that choice are both in sync. A robot, conversely, has no conscious thought so isn't 'fretting' being a robot. Your very conscious objection is, I believe, the difference between humans and this false assumption that I'd be a robot, puppet, or automaton. It doesn't, however, clarify 'free' in regards to the will. If Christ acts in us to will, think and do, then my will is clearly in the hands of another. I'd call that 'free' since whom Christ sets free is, but it isn't what most mean by freewill. Most mean 'an option to do otherwise' according to the definition of Libertarian Freewill. AMR argues such is not the proper definition.
    Why do you call it "preprogrammed"? "Pre" before what? Life? Adulthood? Death? "Programmed" I can see, but "pre" requires a before and after sequence to make sense.

    And you have no evidence that the programming wasn't merely your life's circumstances, or even that you once liked it for some other reason, and developed a greater taste for it as you reinforced it with repetition.

    The same might be said for most things we do repeatedly or habitually, but can survive without. Alcoholism: preprogrammed? Homosexuality: preprogrammed?

    I would have to say that sin is definitely something we can live without (and only without), and it is reinforced by repetition. If you are preprogrammed to sin, then who did the preprogramming? If God did it, including for Adam, then God is the author of sin. If God didn't do it, but knew it would happen, then God may have been powerless to stop it, at least within the context of the world he created.

    I propose the latter--that God knew it would happen within the context of the world he created, and He managed to direct it in a way that He would have the ability to correct at some point. I think that explains the simplicity of the first test (tree of knowledge), the overwhelming ramifications of the failure of that test (whole human race doomed), and the magnificence and self-sacrifice of the solution (His Son crucified).

    The subject of this thread is "the world He created". How does it work? I don't prefer the idea that God "knew" the future in some way and decided to somehow change it--I've stated before that such is impossible, since the future He "knew" was not the future that actually occurred, and therefore He didn't really "know" it. But I can see how God would understand the potential results of creating a free agent. I say "potential results", but I think the result of sin is a foregone conclusion in a population of free agents. And it might be a foregone conclusion with any single free agent, given enough time (not sure about this part).

    So, getting back to chocolate vs vanilla. Did God preprogram you for vanilla? Why? If not God,then who? And why? If you can't be sure of the reason (and none of us could be, probably), can you at least think of one reason why someone would want to preprogram you for vanilla?


    On the other hand, if Christ needs us to be vanilla-choosers for some reason--like maybe chocolate is from the devil (Devil's Food Cake, anyone?), and leads to death--then I can see how it would be something he would want us to choose, since He loves us. If we then choose vanilla at His request/command, we are submitting our will, our power of choice, to Him, trusting that He knows what are the right and good things for us to choose.

  4. #363
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,086
    Thanks
    523
    Thanked 913 Times in 626 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    244788
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Don't know how you took biology away from my previous post.

    The will is but the mind choosing.
    Inclinations born from our desires and affections drive choices.
    You say the will is our mind choosing, but before you have said we only choose those things that we want most. And if this isn't to be a great circle with no escape, the knowledge of those things we want most must come from how we perceive them to be better for us. We perceive with our senses, which are transmitted by electrical and chemical impulses in our bodies (and perhaps other means).

    Maybe you can explain why biology ISN'T what you were talking about.

    The will is that by which the mind chooses. It chooses by its perception the greatest. The will isnít the cause of action. It is the effect. The will isnít just a faculty. It is the mind choosing. Every act of the will presupposes a cause. This cause is the ďmotive.Ē The strongest motive determines the action of the will.
    Ok. and how does this help? Doesn't the person determine what motive is strongest for him? Aren't you just giving "will" different names?

    "Why did you murder that man?"
    "Because I wanted to more than I wanted him to live."
    "Why didn't you want him to live?"
    "Because I wanted him to die."
    "Why did you want him to die?"
    "Because I wanted to murder him."
    ...

    To even speak of free will is a category confusion. Liberty is the power to do as one pleases. It doesnít belong under the category of ďWill,Ē but agency. Agents are free, wills are not. There is a chain of causes in each act of the will. The key question: is this first act of the Will free or not? If it is free (in the sense of uncaused), then we have an uncaused Cause (God). If it isnít free, then the Will is not free.
    Can God make a being that can freely cause? I think you're saying He cannot. I say He can. And scripture backs me up from the earliest appearance of man--Gen 2:19. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. The existence of the man and his abilities were caused by God. The names of the animals were caused by the man. The naming was dependent, but the names he called them were independent. Is that possible? Can God create a creative being? Or does man only "create" what God plants in his mind? (Be careful...if you say man only creates what God plants in his mind, then God is the author of sin.)


    Even if someone like the anti-Calvinst wants to salvage some aspect of free will, he must come to grips that even that (relatively) free will is still determined by something, so it canít be truly free. We cannot claim indifference as the necessary condition of free will. If the mind or will is indifferent between two options, then it cannot choose between two options, for it has no reason to choose either. Further, it entails a contradiction; namely, that the mind is both in a state of inclination and a state of equilibrium.

    Some will even argue that the will can come to action without a cause. Well, if we agree God is the necessary first cause of all things, it must be concluded that that which exists without a cause is eternal and eternality can only be ascribed to God.

    AMR
    As to a free agent vs a free will, I think you are playing with words. The idea that our wills are free from OUTSIDE coercion is the concept we are getting at. Of course our wills are not free from us. Nor is our existence independent of God. If a will is free of all sentience, it's not a "will"; it's an "unwill", purposeless. And if a person is coerced in all choices (including naming of animals), it is a charade. "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what God would call them...???

    But then is man eternal, just because he can come up with names for animals? Hardly.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Derf For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 26th, 2018),Rosenritter (October 26th, 2018)

  6. #364
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,615
    Thanks
    2,663
    Thanked 4,657 Times in 2,775 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147732
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Sure.

    But that does sound like a false dichotomy.
    I'm not sure we are on the same page. Let me ask: were we born in bondage to sin and death? Did that include our will?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    That's a non sequitur.
    Why? What are you 'free' to choose in such a state? Does it even matter if you have a choice between trivial matters like vanilla or chocolate if your 'freewill' cannot do a thing about sin and death?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Says nothing explicitly denying choice:
    For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.
    Romans 7:14-‬16 NKJV

    Also says nothing to deny choice in a prior state.
    It may need a bit more explanation, but what is the difference between 'sold as a slave' and 'freewill' that one can exist? I was just watching a documentary about an abducted girl. Her will was so downtrodden that she couldn't even ask for help when in public. Would you say she had freewill? More importantly, when it comes to the will and theology, the more pertinent question is: Is 'a choice to do otherwise' a good thing? Are you at all doubtful, like me, that freewill was what God intended when it came to sin?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I agree with AMR, you are a sharp guy.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  7. #365
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,615
    Thanks
    2,663
    Thanked 4,657 Times in 2,775 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147732
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Why do you call it "preprogrammed"? "Pre" before what? Life? Adulthood? Death? "Programmed" I can see, but "pre" requires a before and after sequence to make sense.

    And you have no evidence that the programming wasn't merely your life's circumstances, or even that you once liked it for some other reason, and developed a greater taste for it as you reinforced it with repetition.
    I've always preferred vanilla. It must be in my DNA, hence 'pre' programmed. You are somewhat correct that programmed and 'pre' are often redundant, but sometimes it helps to know there was probably some "Master Chess Player" moves before I got here. It simply anticipates that God is well-above and beyond my 'at-this-moment.'
    The same might be said for most things we do repeatedly or habitually, but can survive without. Alcoholism: preprogrammed? Homosexuality: preprogrammed?
    EXCEPT that vanilla is a good thing. There is no problem with God having programmed us to 'like' and desire 'good-for-you' food. Choice? Imho, doesn't matter. It really doesn't. There is no significant point to preferring broccoli to kale OTHER than perhaps one being better for you. "Choice" doesn't stop me from enjoying broccoli. I just like it. "Puppet!" doesn't even come to mind nor do I care a whit that someone says anything derogatory about it. That IS THEIR problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I would have to say that sin is definitely something we can live without (and only without), and it is reinforced by repetition. If you are preprogrammed to sin, then who did the preprogramming? If God did it, including for Adam, then God is the author of sin. If God didn't do it, but knew it would happen, then God may have been powerless to stop it, at least within the context of the world he created.

    I propose the latter--that God knew it would happen within the context of the world he created, and He managed to direct it in a way that He would have the ability to correct at some point. I think that explains the simplicity of the first test (tree of knowledge), the overwhelming ramifications of the failure of that test (whole human race doomed), and the magnificence and self-sacrifice of the solution (His Son crucified).
    Are you like me, in this: that it is how best I see it rather than a "God had to do it this way!" mode?

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    The subject of this thread is "the world He created". How does it work? I don't prefer the idea that God "knew" the future in some way and decided to somehow change it--I've stated before that such is impossible, since the future He "knew" was not the future that actually occurred, and therefore He didn't really "know" it. But I can see how God would understand the potential results of creating a free agent. I say "potential results", but I think the result of sin is a foregone conclusion in a population of free agents. And it might be a foregone conclusion with any single free agent, given enough time (not sure about this part).
    Lots of presuppositions here and I question some of them. I do know that 'sovereignty' means 'in-control.' If He is in control, we are not. You cannot have two front-seat drivers. Psalm 115:3 2 Chronicles 20:6

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    So, getting back to chocolate vs vanilla. Did God preprogram you for vanilla? Why? If not God,then who? And why? If you can't be sure of the reason (and none of us could be, probably), can you at least think of one reason why someone would want to preprogram you for vanilla?
    For His own good pleasure. I 'enjoy' it. Does that shed dark on those who love chocolate? I don't like beets. I have no problem with those who love them (I hope they eat them all up).



    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    On the other hand, if Christ needs us to be vanilla-choosers for some reason--like maybe chocolate is from the devil (Devil's Food Cake, anyone?), and leads to death--then I can see how it would be something he would want us to choose, since He loves us. If we then choose vanilla at His request/command, we are submitting our will, our power of choice, to Him, trusting that He knows what are the right and good things for us to choose.
    Vanilla and Chocolate were here WAY before you or I ever got here. He was intimately aware of the properties and well aware of desire for them. Why? His good pleasure. Being 'pre-programmed' is no bad thing. It never was. I'm GLAD God made steaks, fruit, vegetables, and colors before I EVER arrived on the planet. Each then, certainly is 'pre'programmed by God. Hurt us at all? Makes me feel loved AND thought about before I ever got here. Jeremiah 1:5 John 14:3 "pre" is good.
    Some Open Theists may grasp AND appreciate these truths of God, but I'm very sad for those who do not find these truths in God and worse, not appreciate them as His.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  8. #366
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,615
    Thanks
    2,663
    Thanked 4,657 Times in 2,775 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147732
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    I cannot see "will in bondage" in any of the previous text, so no, that wasn't the meaning at all.

    Besides, that would render Christ's admonition useless. What would be the point of telling the Pharisees that they could not serve both God and mammon unless they had a choice over which they would (will) serve?
    Whether men can choose to not break the law or not, you may still tell them what 'breaking the law' looks like.
    But "Pharisees???" This is from the Sermon on the Mount.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Serve does NOT mean "without will" or "with an enslaved will" (implying no will?) That's not the meaning.
    I'll give you some room for confusion. The word 'serve' here is 'enslaved.' Serve (servitude) isn't as clear as 'enslaved.' The word used here is 'enslaved.' -Lon
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  9. #367
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,615
    Thanks
    2,663
    Thanked 4,657 Times in 2,775 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147732
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    No. A computer program uses a complex algorithm that is merely difficult to predict, but even if you allowed for a theoretical "true" random that would not be a free will... any more than a pair of dice or a feather in the wind.
    1) Why wouldn't it be? Doesn't the program 'freely' choose? (I think it does).
    2) Why 'must' we have a will? Think about the 'must' part. Did God HAVE to create us with a "will to disobey" Him?

    Further: to me, that IS what 'free' will means. Why would God need to make us with a desire/will to disobey Him?
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  10. #368
    BANNED Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    18,337
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 11,986 Times in 8,566 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I'm not sure we are on the same page.
    Possibly.

    Were we born in bondage to sin and death?
    Yes.

    Did that include our will?
    The will is just the ability to choose. People always have that, no matter how restricted the possible choices are.

    Why? What are you 'free' to choose in such a state?
    Anything possible.

    Does it even matter if you have a choice between trivial matters like vanilla or chocolate if your 'freewill' cannot do a thing about sin and death?
    It is not the will that does anything about sin and death. That is solely taken care of by Jesus' work on the cross and His resurrection.

    It may need a bit more explanation, but what is the difference between 'sold as a slave' and 'freewill' that one can exist? I was just watching a documentary about an abducted girl. Her will was so downtrodden that she couldn't even ask for help when in public. Would you say she had freewill? More importantly, when it comes to the will and theology, the more pertinent question is: Is 'a choice to do otherwise' a good thing? Are you at all doubtful, like me, that freewill was what God intended when it came to sin?
    I don't entirely understand your questions. The girl has a will. God gave us a will. He knew we would possibly use it for evil.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 26th, 2018)

  12. #369
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,086
    Thanks
    523
    Thanked 913 Times in 626 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    244788
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    ...
    It is not the will that does anything about sin and death. That is solely taken care of by Jesus' work on the cross and His resurrection.
    ...
    I think this is key. If Jesus Christ's death broke down the barrier that separates us from life, but we still have to believe it, the will is responsible for rejecting, but not responsible for the access.

    And if nothing we could ever do would provide that access to life, then all we do would be seen as filthy rags to accomplish the access, no matter the quality or quantity of our works.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Derf For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (October 26th, 2018)

  14. #370
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195048
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I've always preferred vanilla. It must be in my DNA, hence 'pre' programmed. You are somewhat correct that programmed and 'pre' are often redundant, but sometimes it helps to know there was probably some "Master Chess Player" moves before I got here. It simply anticipates that God is well-above and beyond my 'at-this-moment.'
    Do you like to drink cider vinegar? At first I hated it... but I trained myself first to tolerate it and now I even appreciate it. I could choose other examples (such as the fermented cabbage dish called kimchi.) We have the capability to change our actions and even our preferences against our initial inclinations. We may speculate as to whether our decisions may be already decided by our programming, but we have the ability (will) that allows us to change our programming.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    Derf (October 26th, 2018)

  16. #371
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195048
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    Whether men can choose to not break the law or not, you may still tell them what 'breaking the law' looks like.
    But "Pharisees???" This is from the Sermon on the Mount.
    Luke 16:13-14 KJV
    (13) No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
    (14) And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

    You didn't address the question. What would be the point of telling the Pharisees (or the people on the mount) that they would be "breaking the law" if they had no other option but to "break the law?" That's still no better than "you cannot serve both God and mammon." The admonition was that they needed to choose between God and mammon.

  17. #372
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,802 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195048
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    1) Why wouldn't it be? Doesn't the program 'freely' choose? (I think it does).
    2) Why 'must' we have a will? Think about the 'must' part. Did God HAVE to create us with a "will to disobey" Him?

    Further: to me, that IS what 'free' will means. Why would God need to make us with a desire/will to disobey Him?
    1. Have you ever tried to program a computer to play a game where it needs to simulate human choices? I have. No, a program does not freely choose. But a good programmer does a job of making it seem that the program is freely choosing, even to the point of faking reaction time and human-like errors.

    2. A program (has no will) cannot disobey because by definition a program can only follow its instructions. If you tried to program a thing to disobey the very act of obeying your instructions would be proof of obedience. You've run aground on the rocks of paradox.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    Derf (October 26th, 2018)

  19. #373
    Over 2000 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,086
    Thanks
    523
    Thanked 913 Times in 626 Posts

    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    244788
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    I've always preferred vanilla. It must be in my DNA, hence 'pre' programmed.
    To quote a wise man: "Lots of presuppositions here and I question some of them."
    Why do you assume it's in the DNA? Are you saying your DNA will make choices for you? I guess that's true of some things, like designing you so that you don't have to think about breathing. But why does a preference have to be programmed at all? It's a presupposition, and an unsubstantiated one.
    You are somewhat correct that programmed and 'pre' are often redundant, but sometimes it helps to know there was probably some "Master Chess Player" moves before I got here. It simply anticipates that God is well-above and beyond my 'at-this-moment.'
    I don't deny this. In fact, it is another thing that makes the open theistic model so intuitive. But a "Master Chess Player" is usually playing against an opponent, responding to the opponents moves--not orchestrating both sides.



    EXCEPT that vanilla is a good thing. There is no problem with God having programmed us to 'like' and desire 'good-for-you' food. Choice? Imho, doesn't matter. It really doesn't. There is no significant point to preferring broccoli to kale OTHER than perhaps one being better for you. "Choice" doesn't stop me from enjoying broccoli. I just like it. "Puppet!" doesn't even come to mind nor do I care a whit that someone says anything derogatory about it. That IS THEIR problem.
    But I tend to like chocolate over broccoli. And sweet over something that's better for me. I don't think "puppet" applies, so I can see why it doesn't come to your mind, either. The only way for "puppet" to really mean something is if we AREN'T puppets, and can detect when we are being coerced, at least to some degree. A puppet doesn't know he's a puppet.

    Are you like me, in this: that it is how best I see it rather than a "God had to do it this way!" mode?

    Lots of presuppositions here and I question some of them. I do know that 'sovereignty' means 'in-control.' If He is in control, we are not. You cannot have two front-seat drivers. Psalm 115:3 2 Chronicles 20:6
    But God let's us take control. He let's us drive, just like you at some point have to let your teenager drive--he needs the experience, while under your supervision, so that he can function safely while NOT under your supervision. We don't always drive well at first, but through some sanctification, we get better. And yes, this does fit in with His sovereignty. He relinquishes some control, in order (I think) to get it back with gain in our submission/worship/love to Him. But if not, then He still takes back control when He wants.

    I don't know what plans God has for us in eternity--if He will have jobs for us to do, where He gives some instruction, but allows us to accomplish the job in various ways that all fit within some larger bounds. But this is the point of the parable of the talents, of the vinedressers, and possibly the unjust steward. Such activity had already been assigned to the leaders of Israel, and they weren't doing that well in Jesus' time (or before). Similar concepts are expressed in Jesus' letters to the churches. Does it make any sense that such activities would all go away in eternity, after God has achieved His purpose in training a people to do, joyfully, what He wants done?

  20. #374
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,615
    Thanks
    2,663
    Thanked 4,657 Times in 2,775 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147732
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    The girl has a will. God gave us a will. He knew we would possibly use it for evil.
    That's better than most Open Theists would say; They would say that is a future not happened thus 'unknowable.'

    I'm not sure we've come to a point where a 'freewill' and 'will' is understood in the same light. For the most part, this whole part of the discussion is whether I see the will and freewill as being the same or different and I appreciate you walking through this with me. I'm still not sure I grasp what you were saying so I'd appreciate anything you can add. To me, the will is a desire BUT not always 'free' to exercise that desire, thus, for me, there is always a need for distinction on just this consideration alone. Thank you, Lon
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  21. #375
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,615
    Thanks
    2,663
    Thanked 4,657 Times in 2,775 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147732
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Do you like to drink cider vinegar? At first I hated it... but I trained myself first to tolerate it and now I even appreciate it.
    I tried that with beets. Moreover? Some people have allergies to specific food. Again, all in place WAY before your will or desire came into play.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    I could choose other examples (such as the fermented cabbage dish called kimchi.) We have the capability to change our actions and even our preferences against our initial inclinations. We may speculate as to whether our decisions may be already decided by our programming, but we have the ability (will) that allows us to change our programming.
    As I've provided above, no, you really don't. You have the ability to alter 'some' things. On top of that, do you REALLY love drinking vinegar???

    Would you choose it over chocolate???
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us