Any followers of Christ as pissed off at other so called "Christians" as I am?

[sprinkles]

Yet you still didn't answer to my question, and because of that I'm tempted to say your free will works just fine, or you don't have one, and that's why you can't answer?

But lets get back to the question: If a law vilolates and invalidates the free will of any person that is in that respective state, then how come prisons are full? Because you guys answered to me (or at least skarekrow), that because of that law sudenly the individual has no free will. So if doesn't have free will, how he manages to get to prison?

I already answered you. It's not the law that prohibits from having free will. It's the inability to do otherwise.

It isn't somebody taking away freedom, it's everyone not having it. So therefore making law in itself is imposed.

Well if they violate it, then the use of law and law itself and especially those who create it are imoral, right? Or only God is imoral?

Let's say a father tell to his kid to not touch the electric cables, or a fire. He tells the child if he touch it, then he will be punished. So in your opinion, the father is imoral because he violate the free will of the child, right?

The punishment is immoral yes. The education, maybe not.

Do you think that under any circumstances it would be moral and permissible to kill an infant child for the crimes of the parent?

 

[LucyJr]

I already answered you. It's not the law that prohibits from having free will. It's the inability to do otherwise.

It isn't somebody taking away freedom, it's everyone not having it. So therefore making law in itself is imposed.

I don't think you answered me. I think you continue to avoid the question, and in the same time contradicting yourself.

The question was a simple one: If a law-or whatever your theory say it is, like "It's not the law that prohibits from having free will. It's the inability to do otherwise.- violates the free will of individuals, how do people get in jail ?

Regarding what you said, can you explain exactly what are you trying to say? When you say "making law in itself is imposed", imposed by who?
Also, the making of a law is a act of free will, do you realise this, right? Because in some countries, some laws are not given...yet. And in other countries, some laws are never given. So you already contradicted yourself, what's next?

The punishment is immoral yes. The education, maybe not.

Again you didn't answer to the questions that I raised.
My questions was a simple one:

Well if they violate it (free will), then the use of law and law itself and especially those who create it are imoral, right? Or only God is imoral?

So, do you think the concepts of law itself is imoral? Also, do you think the punishments that the organs of law give to the individual are imoral, for example "You are condemned at 10 years of whatever, because you commited murder", is this punishment imoral?

And this question I ask you to show you the underlying hypocrisy in all your objections. And by this I don't accuse or something like that, I just want you to think at what you're saying.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
First God tells Moses to tell Pharaoh to "to let My people go." And Pharaoh would have let the Hebrews go. Sure he would, had not God Himself intervened. Why would Pharaoh let them go? Because Pharaoh’s heart was both soft and weak. A soft and weak heart was no match for God. Pharaoh would have caved in and let His people go. But God did not want Pharaoh to let His people go. He asked Pharaoh to let His people go, but He didn’t want Pharaoh to let them go this easily.
Next God has to do something in order to prevent Pharaoh from letting His people go. God actually wants Pharaoh to go against His stated will. God’s stated will is "let My people go," but God doesn’t want Pharaoh to do God’s stated will at this time. He wants Pharaoh to resist God.
God has not changed, God still wants mankind to resist Him. But Pharaoh (just like the rest of humanity) is too weak and soft to resist God. So what does God do? Two things:

1. "And I will harden [Heb: qashah—to make hard] Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay My hand upon Egypt, and bring forth Mine armies, and My people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. And the Egyptians shallknow that I am the Lord, when I stretch forth Mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them"
   After God hardens Pharaoh’s heart [makes it harder than it was], and Pharaoh resists God’s will and refuses to let the Hebrews go, God then puts greater and greater plagues upon Egypt until even hard-hearted Pharaoh gives in and lets the people go. But notice what God does after this.
   
2. "For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness has shut them in. And I will harden [Heb: chazaq—to make strong and courageous] Pharaoh’s heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the Lord. And they did so" (Ex. 14:3-4).

Pharaoh was naturally too soft of heart to resist letting the Hebrews go, and so God hardened his soft heart so that he would resist and would not let the people go until God first made a great display of His strength to the Egyptians. And after Pharaoh did let the people go, God wanted Pharaoh to try and follow after them and kill them. But this time we find that Pharaoh’s heart was too weak. And so again, God strengthens and gives courage to Pharaoh’s weak heart, and Pharaoh charges after Israel only to be totally defeated by God in the Red Sea.
Well, there it is. How hard is that to understand? But who will believe it? From Pharaoh’s birth until his death, God had a purpose for Pharaoh’s life, and God controlled every aspect of it. Pharaoh had not "free will" in any of these events. God changes not; He operates the same way in everyone’s life. You will either be a vessel of honor or a vessel of dishonor.

The example of the disciples forsaking Jesus is so important to the question of fee will that we are going to stay with it a little longer. Can we believe that Jesus could have told His disciples the following:
"And Jesus said unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night, but then again, maybe not all of you will be offended, seeing that all of you have a free will to will against My pronouncement…."
Or maybe this to Peter:
"And Jesus said unto him [Peter] Verily I say unto you, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shall deny me thrice, but then again, maybe you won’t deny Me three times, seeing that you have a free will that does not need to deny Me even once. It doesn’t depend on what I say, or circumstances brought about by My Father, or what God declares, but rather on your own free will."
Sounds a little silly when we look at it logically doesn’t it? Yet this IS the contention of those who believe in "free will." Maybe Peter will, but then again maybe Peter won’t, NOT EVEN GOD KNOWS FOR SURE. Almost sounds like blasphemy, doesn’t it? It is blasphemy.
To argue that when God prophesies, states, and intends that someone do a particular thing, that the person is still at liberty because of his supposed free will, to not do what God has said, is absurdity on the highest level. Yet this IS what the theory of free will demands.
The fact that God has a foreknowledge of everything proves that free will is an impossibility, as true free will could alter the future and therefore God could not have an absolute and true knowledge of the future. It is idiocy to state that man has a free will that is not made or caused to do as it does, and yet state that God knows in advance the only possible choice that a person must make.
How can one believe that if God states that a person will make choice A, that he is nonetheless still at liberty to make choice B? Let me restate that: Can God say that you WILL make choice A, but you can make choice B?
Can God say that such and such, WILL happen but that it doesn’t need to happen? The disciples WILL forsake and deny Christ, but they have a free choice NOT to forsake and deny Him? God knows in advance that something WILL be a certain way, and yet it doesn’t have to be that way? Am I going too fast for anyone?
Not only does the theory of free will demand that man be able to think uncaused thoughts and performed uncaused tasks, but that he can in fact, do these uncaused things contrary to and in opposition to God’s preordained stated plan and purpose. He must be blind indeed, who cannot or will not see that such a haughty presumption lifts such an one’s ego to that of a veritable "god’ in his own heart and mind.
[/INDENT]

I'll reply at this later.
In a short answer, you missunderstood foreknolewdge.
Foreknowledge implies a foreknowledge in a logical sense, not in a actual sense, in time and space and events.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't think you answered me. I think you continue to avoid the question, and in the same time contradicting yourself.

The question was a simple one: If a law-or whatever your theory say it is, like "It's not the law that prohibits from having free will. It's the inability to do otherwise.- violates the free will of individuals, how do people get in jail ?

I already told you that the people making the laws also have no free will and no choice but to send people to jail over the illusion of free will. Ask me 5,000 times but you're not going to get another answer damit. I really do not like this kind of repetitive density.

Regarding what you said, can you explain exactly what are you trying to say? When you say "making law in itself is imposed", imposed by who?
Also, the making of a law is a act of free will, do you realise this, right?

It isn't in the current premise. That's what I've been telling you.

Because in some countries, some laws are not given...yet. And in other countries, some laws are never given. So you already contradicted yourself, what's next?

Some countries haven't wiped out polio either. Is that a choice also?

Again you didn't answer to the questions that I raised.
My questions was a simple one:

So, do you think the concepts of law itself is imoral? Also, do you think the punishments that the organs of law give to the individual are imoral, for example "You are condemned at 10 years of whatever, because you commited murder", is this punishment imoral?

Yes. It is not at all uncommon in this world to counter immoral things with yet more immoral things. Please don't make me repeat myself again.

And this question I ask you to show you the underlying hypocrisy in all your objections. And by this I don't accuse or something like that, I just want you to think at what you're saying.

You don't have to accuse me, I openly admit to my stance!

 

[LucyJr]

I already told you that the people making the laws also have no free will and no choice but to send people to jail over the illusion of free will. Ask me 5,000 times but you're not going to get another answer damit. I really do not like this kind of repetitive density.


It isn't in the current premise. That's what I've been telling you.


Some countries haven't wiped out polio either. Is that a choice also?


Yes. It is not at all uncommon in this world to counter immoral things with yet more immoral things. Please don't make me repeat myself again.


You don't have to accuse me, I openly admit to my stance!

So you in replying to me, you didn't had free will? You just had to reply, driven by blind causes?

 

[sprinkles]

So you in replying to me, you didn't had free will? You just had to reply, driven by blind causes?

Quite possibly! But I don't know. I told you that I don't actually know earlier. This is all supposition for the hypothesis, I am not presenting it as fact.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

I already told you that the people making the laws also have no free will and no choice but to send people to jail over the illusion of free will. Ask me 5,000 times but you're not going to get another answer damit. I really do not like this kind of repetitive density.

Interesting. What wills these people to sent the muderers to jail? It's just something completely irrational, driven by blind causes? You mean they are inconstient of what they are doing?

 

[LucyJr]

Quite possibly! But I don't know. I told you that I don't actually know earlier. This is all supposition for the hypothesis, I am not presenting it as fact.

If its quite possibly, you just discredited the whole knowledge. Meaning that I don't have any reason to take your arguments seriously. They are just driven by blind causes, not because of a rational analysis.

 

[Skarekrow]

I'll reply at this later.
In a short answer, you missunderstood foreknolewdge.
Foreknowledge implies a foreknowledge in a logical sense, not in a actual sense, in time and space and events.

If the will of God is the final say in the matter....then just as Jesus KNEW that Peter would question him....just as God knew that Adam and Eve would partake of the apple...then why put the tree there at all?
Foreknowledge DOES imply that it is part of HIS plan for all things...HE knows what you will do, what choices you will make (he knows if you are bad or good so be good for goodness sake...lolol) then HE can or has adjusted HIS plans accordingly.
If you could thwart the end of the world (if it were part of HIS plan), if you had the power, would you still act? Acting would imply that HIS plan was for you to act...just as NOT acting would imply the same.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

Interesting. What wills these people to sent the muderers to jail? It's just something completely irrational, driven by blind causes? You mean they are inconstient of what they are doing?

99% of it is probably just blind tradition, I'll say that much as an actual thing. The system outlives any individual so you come into this social organism where laws and mores are already in place and nobody alive had a hand in the tradition of keeping them most of the time, so people adapt to survive in this environment out of necessity.

I think punishment is immoral because it is vengeful after the fact, and in many cases violent and abusive. It's really a sick idea to me. If you make the criminal suffer just for the sake of it then how are you any different from them?

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

 

[LucyJr]

If the will of God is the final say in the matter....then just as Jesus KNEW that Peter would question him....just as God knew that Adam and Eve would partake of the apple...then why put the tree there at all?
Foreknowledge DOES imply that it is part of HIS plan for all things...HE knows what you will do, what choices you will make (he knows if you are bad or good so be good for goodness sake...lolol) then HE can or has adjusted HIS plans accordingly.
If you could thwart the end of the world (if it were part of HIS plan), if you had the power, would you still act? Acting would imply that HIS plan was for you to act...just as NOT acting would imply the same.

[video=youtube;mXUMhSmeivE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXUMhSmeivE[/video]

 

[just me]

If the will of God is the final say in the matter....then just as Jesus KNEW that Peter would question him....just as God knew that Adam and Eve would partake of the apple...then why put the tree there at all?
Foreknowledge DOES imply that it is part of HIS plan for all things...HE knows what you will do, what choices you will make (he knows if you are bad or good so be good for goodness sake...lolol) then HE can or has adjusted HIS plans accordingly.
If you could thwart the end of the world (if it were part of HIS plan), if you had the power, would you still act? Acting would imply that HIS plan was for you to act...just as NOT acting would imply the same.

Man, that takes a lot of pressure off. Thanks.

I remember back many moons ago studying predestination, but I cannot for the life of me remember studying free will. I know we were made in the image of God; remember that one. I know God, the Father, wants his children to want to come to Him. We want our children to make the best choices.

The mediocre infj, from what has been found in just a few years, has abilities to sometimes know what is going to happen. There art probably many people out there with the gift of seeing, but what can we forever do with it? It does not mean we place others in scenarios Just to watch them do what we would have them do or what we know they will do.

David's Father always made nice garments for him to wear, which made his much larger brothers jealous. Maybe David's Father knew something great was going to happen with or to David.

When Goliath came spouting off at the mouth against God, it was little shepherd David that took him on. He stood up for God in that day. He somehow knew he would slay that giant, and all with a little pebble and years of practice. David sinned, but was said to have been a man after God's own heart. Surely David was just a man, though no ordinary man. He knew how to look down the road and see how to get people through years of drought. Was he a seer?

We are predestined to be conformed into the image of God. I'll have to study it again after decades of putting it down. Free will was looked at as choice to me. Many are called, but few are chosen. I used to have money coming in so I could study at will. I will now have to live on faith to study, or study as I can and just do without a lot of things. Is it that important to you guys and gals? It has been studied by many knowledgeable men, and the Reformation brought in new eyes. It is also a delicate study. Wish this had been asked 25 years ago: I may have been more help then.

 

[the]

If its quite possibly, you just discredited the whole knowledge. Meaning that I don't have any reason to take your arguments seriously. They are just driven by blind causes, not because of a rational analysis.

Why is the rational removed from his case just because of the possibility that he was compelled by god? If god makes you believe something true, does gods interferrence falsify that truth?

Spoiler

No

 

[just me]

"God's" interference; now, there's a thought for the day.

 

[LucyJr]

Why is the rational removed from his case just because of the possibility that he was compelled by god? If god makes you believe something true, does gods interferrence falsify that truth?

Spoiler

No

Because determinism makes impossible the existence of free will, morality, and REASON, and overall the knowledge itself. Therefore, his argument is self-contradictory.

 

[sprinkles]

If its quite possibly, you just discredited the whole knowledge. Meaning that I don't have any reason to take your arguments seriously. They are just driven by blind causes, not because of a rational analysis.

I missed this one.

You're welcome to not take it seriously. It's not like I need you or anything.

 

[LucyJr]

I missed this one.

You're welcome to not take it seriously. It's not like I need you or anything.

Eh, you don't get it. Don't make it personal.
I was saying that your argument invalidates itself, because its a argument that there are no arguments, or a 'proof' that there are no 'proof'.
That's what I meant by not taking seriously your argument. Full determinism is a absurd position, a intrinsic impossibility, self-contradictory. It can not be rationally afirmed.

 

[sprinkles]

Eh, you don't get it. Don't make it personal.
I was saying that your argument invalidates itself, because its a argument that there are no arguments, or a 'proof' that there are no 'proof'.
That's what I meant by not taking seriously your argument. Full determinism is a absurd position, a intrinsic impossibility, self-contradictory. It can not be rationally afirmed.

Where did I argue for full determinism

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
Also if you recall a gentle discussion we had a while back, my position is that most of the time we're deterministic and that will arises in meta-consciousness, or transcendence.

I'd add that it's not a free will, it's a compatible will. But don't take me seriously. You probably shouldn't. In fact I don't want you to.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]
Also if you recall a gentle discussion we had a while back, my position is that most of the time we're deterministic and that will arises in meta-consciousness, or transcendence.

I'd add that it's not a free will, it's a compatible will. But don't take me seriously. You probably shouldn't. In fact I don't want you to.

What do you mean by that?