ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[dale]

How does the ability to choose have anything to do with emotions?

Muz

Choosing (for lack of a better term) without emotion equates to being a machine without a will. Choosing with emotion equates to being a living soul.

 

[dale]

...How would an independent will not be free? What would it be 'independent' of?

Good point. Maybe the thing is to just quit calling it a "free will" altogether and just call it your "will."

 

[elected4ever]

Hey why don't we just call it "Cheep" will?

It all depends on the value you place on your life and the value of Christ life.

We could then differentiate between nickel will and dime will. Maybe there is even a 'her' will and a 'him' will.

This remark is beneth you, Philetus.

Just don't like the word free, do you, E? How would an independent will not be free? What would it be 'independent' of?

Free? Not in the context that it is used here.

Independence speaks of the personal sovereignty to exercise it without reference to cost or influence. There is always cost and influence yet we make our on choices basted on who we are.

 

[Philetus]

Before the universe is created it is not actual and the creation of the universe is still in the future. So how is it learned because it didn't unfold by itself?

Potentiality. God has unlimited potential to create any world He wished (wishes). Once the decision was made and the creative act initiated God had to live with it. So do we.
Once God said “let there be light” light became a factor that influenced all future creating activity. When God said, "let there be trees" ... we get shade. It really isn't that complicated. Now trees reproduce after their own kind AND we even get shade from artificial trees in malls under florescent lights on our way to tan at the tanning salon. Go figure. I guess you could say that God had all that thought out ahead of time or that He planned it in meticulous detail. I prefer to think that God created a universe that works; works so well in fact that it continues to work (sustain life) even if we pave over it so we can park our cars while we tan.

It's called creating. And if creation has built-in contingencies (like letting you decide which socks you are going to wear) then the future of creation is open (in at least what color socks you will actually wear twenty years from today, providing you don't fall asleep on railroad tracks and get your feet cut off, but then you could wear your socks on your hands ... and then there is a remote possibility that you will have prosthesis and could wear them anyway ... ) to those contingencies.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the OV primarily because that is what the Scriptures teach, I am just trying to understand the philosophical side of it more, but it seems like you are using a bit of circular reasoning. How are "those things" (the alphabet and algebra) exhaustively knowable when they don't exist (they are not actual, they are in the future and they are not yet created)?

In the case of the alphabet (ours) there are 26 letters. Most of them exist as actual knowledge ... not a long stretch that God can handle that. Algebra may be a bit tougher for Him. Try to convince my High school age son that Algebra does not exist. Quiz on Tuesday.

Isn't God's creation a contingency? He did not have to create the universe, right?

Have to? No. But, He did! And that rules out some contingencies. Dean's exact path and exactly where it will make landfall is still an unknown/best (educated?) guess/contingency. But, if you ask Jamaica and Haiti if Dean is real .... :duh: ... and even Texans are boarding up the windows. Did it blow my hut over, yes or no ... will it blow my house down, maybe.

Don't complicate it to much. Contingencies exist in the present not the past, because the future isn't real yet.

If the point you are trying to make is that 'creation' was once a contingency ... I agree it was. But now it is real and yet has some (many?) contingencies built into it.

 

[themuzicman]

Choosing (for lack of a better term) without emotion equates to being a machine without a will. Choosing with emotion equates to being a living soul.

Again, what does emotion have to do with choosing? You're trying to make a distinction, but there isn't a difference. In the end, whether a chemical is released into the system that makes it react in particular way doesn't change the mechanics of decision making.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

A will that is contrary to God's is not necessarily one that is free to do whatever it wants. There really is no such thing as unhindered exhaustive free will. You are free to do some things, but not all things.

Sorta free to act contrary to God's absolute sovereign meticulous omnipotent omniscient divine will and still suck His air?
OK, I'll take that as sorta freedom.

Whatever,
Philetus

 

[Philetus]

It all depends on the value you place on your life and the value of Christ life.

This remark is beneth you, Philetus.

Free? Not in the context that it is used here.

Independence speaks of the personal sovereignty to exercise it without reference to cost or influence. There is always cost and influence yet we make our on choices basted on who we are.

Get a clue E! Discussing this on the level to which you drag it is totally useless. I can't believe you are even serious. It seems the more ridiculous i make my responses to your posts the more seriously you take them. It isn't even entertaining anymore.

 

[dale]

Again, what does emotion have to do with choosing? You're trying to make a distinction, but there isn't a difference. In the end, whether a chemical is released into the system that makes it react in particular way doesn't change the mechanics of decision making.

Muz

Emotion has everything to do with choosing. Without it there is no choosing. Your robot did not choose anything. It did what it was programmed to do without thought or concern. It did not "think." Granted, software can indeed make it look as though these machines are "thinking," but they are not. They are not living souls.

I'm getting quite weary of this Muz. If you're trying to prove that people are merely machines without a will, I strongly disagree. If you're trying to prove that unless our will is free from influence then that means we cannot choose according to our will, I strongly disagree again.

I believe we are living souls who have a will of our own that is being shaped and formed by the will of God. Quite similar to children who have a will of their own but who's will is also being shaped and formed by what the parent allows the child to be exposed to. Notice I did not say it was the same, I said it was similar. Parents do not have the same control over their children as God has over us.

 

[themuzicman]

Emotion has everything to do with choosing. Without it there is no choosing. Your robot did not choose anything. It did what it was programmed to do without thought or concern. It did not "think." Granted, software can indeed make it look as though these machines are "thinking," but they are not. They are not living souls.

I'm getting quite weary of this Muz. If you're trying to prove that people are merely machines without a will, I strongly disagree. If you're trying to prove that unless our will is free from influence then that means we cannot choose according to our will, I strongly disagree again.

I believe we are living souls who have a will of our own that is being shaped and formed by the will of God. Quite similar to children who have a will of their own but who's will is also being shaped and formed by what the parent allows the child to be exposed to. Notice I did not say it was the same, I said it was similar. Parents do not have the same control over their children as God has over us.

The problem is that you're assuming the conclusion. We're discussing whether humans have free will, but you assume that we don't and then go to use our experience to prove that we don't.

That's not valid.

What I'm trying to show is that if all we do is respond to the external stimuli as our nature determines that we will react, then that's not really different than a robot responding to input and reacting.

Further, what you're describing in the last paragraph is limited ability not free will. Even as a child, we have choices. I can choose to obey mom and not touch that hot stove, or I can disobey and grab it.

If we truly have that choice without external or internal factors determining one or the other for us, then we have free will.

Just because God may limit our options doesn't mean that we don't have free will. It just means that we're not unlimited in our ability.

Muz

 

[elected4ever]

Sorta free to act contrary to God's absolute sovereign meticulous omnipotent omniscient divine will and still suck His air?
OK, I'll take that as sorta freedom.

Whatever,
Philetus

Sorta free to act contrary to God's will?:kookoo: God never gave man the freedom to act contrary His will. As a matter of fact He forbade it. If God had given the freedom to act contrary to His will then there would be such thing as sin.

 

[dale]

The problem is that you're assuming the conclusion. We're discussing whether humans have free will, but you assume that we don't and then go to use our experience to prove that we don't.

That's not valid.

The problem is that YOU'RE assuming the conclusion. We're discussing whether humans have free will, but you assume that we do and then go to use our experience to try to prove it.

What I'm trying to show is that if all we do is respond to the external stimuli as our nature determines that we will react, then that's not really different than a robot responding to input and reacting.

And that is part of the problem. Responding to external stimuli is not all we do. We learn of God and His way's. We are able to understand Him in way's that we never could have known Him had we not gone through whatever we go through. At times some of the greatest learning experiences are based on what most people would call "bad" choices. We are not just robots that react as we are programmed, we are living souls.

Further, what you're describing in the last paragraph is limited ability not free will. Even as a child, we have choices. I can choose to obey mom and not touch that hot stove, or I can disobey and grab it.

That's why I said it's similar and not the same. Parents do not have control over influencing factors like God does.

If we truly have that choice without external or internal factors determining one or the other for us, then we have free will.

What makes you think some other factor didn't determine it? Because you weren't aware of it? You think God cannot influence your choices without you knowing it?

Just because God may limit our options doesn't mean that we don't have free will. It just means that we're not unlimited in our ability.

Muz

Just because God shapes and molds our wills in ways that we cannot detect does not negate the fact that He does shape and mold it. It just means that our will is not free of God's control.

 

[themuzicman]

And that is part of the problem. Responding to external stimuli is not all we do. We learn of God and His way's. We are able to understand Him in way's that we never could have known Him had we not gone through whatever we go through. At times some of the greatest learning experiences are based on what most people would call "bad" choices. We are not just robots that react as we are programmed, we are living souls.

Did we choose this bad decision freely, or did God make us choose it, either through determining our nature, or determining our will?

Muz

 

[Town Heretic]

I felt compelled to post here again, though I’m not certain why. Am I compelled by my own intellectual need to establish the relevance of this line of inquiry, or do I merely imagine that I am when in fact I’m being manipulated by forces beyond my comprehension or outside of my control?

It seems a fruitless question and one that cannot be conclusively answered, though the later idea would at least go a long way toward explaining reality television.

 

[Nang]

I felt compelled to post here again, though I’m not certain why.

You love to read and write?

Am I compelled by my own intellectual need to establish the relevance of this line of inquiry, or do I merely imagine that I am when in fact I’m being manipulated by forces beyond my comprehension or outside of my control?

Yes.

It seems a fruitless question

. . .quick learner . . .

and one that cannot be conclusively answered, though the later idea would at least go a long way toward explaining reality television.

God ordained there would someday be reality television. It was all part of His plan.



Nang

 

[dale]

Did we choose this bad decision freely, or did God make us choose it, either through determining our nature, or determining our will?

Muz

I believe God makes us willing to choose badly so as to learn first hand why He says we should or shouldn't do this or that (just one of many reasons).

 

[godrulz]

What do you think it means when the bible says that Jesus was tempted?

Does not Hebrews imply He was tempted in every way we are (He is the Son of Man, not Superman), yet without sin?

The theology debate is the impeccability of Christ. Our understanding of the nature of sin, righteousness, etc. affects our answer. I believe that sin is volitional, not a substance. The temptation of Christ was real, not an illusion. He chose not to sin. He did not sin and never will. It is a moot debate since He is sinless and never sinned. If temptation was not real to Him, the incarnation is not God becoming man, but God becoming robot or Superman. A denial of either His full Deity or Humanity is error.

 

[godrulz]

Oh, please, lets not go there. He does not believe Jesus was the Son of God because he thinks Jesus could have sinned. If Jesus could have sinned then He was not the Son of God.

I believe Jesus is the Son of God and that He is sinless (never sinned). If He was not sinless or sinned, then you might have a point.

 

[godrulz]

That's what I suspected.

I affirm the Deity of Christ. e4e is Arian and denies the Deity of Christ. What does that say about your knowledge and discernment? e4e does not know what he is talking about. He denies that Jesus is the Son of God (equal with the Father), yet accuses me of denying His Sonship because of my views on the nature of sin (impeccability of Christ)?!


Shame on you for siding with the non-Christian cultist over a fellow believer.

 

[Mystery]

Does not Hebrews imply He was tempted in every way we are (He is the Son of Man, not Superman), yet without sin?

So you think that Jesus was tempted to have sex with a prostitute? Was He tempted to rape, murder, steal, lie, molest a child, etc?

Is that what you think it means when the bible says that He was tempted?

 

[godrulz]

So you think that Jesus was tempted to have sex with a prostitute? Was He tempted to rape, murder, steal, lie, molest a child, etc?

Is that what you think it means when the bible says that He was tempted?

No, doe doe bird. It means His temptation was genuine, not a fake show to trick us into thinking He was, but was not.

Men are tempted by various things. I am not tempted to do drugs, but my other temptations are real to me. Jesus was tempted like men are (real, not an illusion to trick us into believing a lie), but this does not mean He was tempted exhaustively in every way (neither are we).

Jesus may have found women attractive, but He did not lust. He enjoyed food, but was not a glutton. He was not tempted to murder or be gay. He was tempted by Satan to put Himself first instead of the Father. He was tempted to not die on the cross if He did not have to (take this cup away if possible?). These were genuine temptations fulfilling the meaning of temptation. He was not tempted in the heinous list you gave. You should know better to suggest I might believe this. The impeccability of Christ views do not even imply this regardless whether you think Christ could have sinned and did not OR that He could not have sinned (impossible) and did not. The bottom line is that He is the sinless Savior and did not sin. Temptation is not a sin. Yielding to it is and He never did. On the other hand, we are condemned sinners even if we are not tempted by your list. We still yield in at least one other area and it differs for each person. The greatest sin is to reject Christ in favor of selfish, godless, rebellion.

Temptation being possible does not mean we are tempted in every way possible.

Can you try to be more respectful and reasonable and dialogue in a mature manner without attributing worst case scenarios to me all the time? We serve a common Lord and Master. Our love and unity should take precedent over being right (as long as we do not compromise essential vs peripheral truth...impeccability of Christ is not salvific if we all agree that we are sinners and He is sinless...it is academic, not heaven/hell).