Started By
Message
re: Question about Freeze and those coaches that wear their faith so openly
Posted on 3/9/17 at 11:38 am to drm185
Posted on 3/9/17 at 11:38 am to drm185
Free will is an extremely 'meaty' concept. Different christian denominations approach it differently. And in fact it has been a central point of contention in some of the schisms that have occurred over the years.
I don't believe the issue of determinism vs. free will has ever been resolved.
From a religious standpoint, I think the argument would go something like this:
Imagine you're a parent and you are tasked with watching a group of 5 year olds. You take them to a playground and tell them to go wild and do whatever they want. Now, in this example that playground is the whole world to those kids, while the parent is privy to information they are not. You're familiar with all of these children and 'know' what they are going to do (this analogy isn't perfect). So in the eyes of the children, they have all the freedom and are masters of their own world. However, the parent A) granted them this freedom and B) has and understanding of the outside world with which the children can't interact.
So in this example, the entire world is the playground for humans. We are granted freedom in our earthly world (playground) by our master (parent); and to us it is the ultimate freedom, while god is privy to spiritual understanding that we cannot conceptualization. We have freedom but it is constrained by other limitations. And that way free will can exist, just beneath god's will.
Full disclosure, I don't necessarily believe this to be true. Just that I think that's a simplified version of the argument that determinism and free will can exist. They exist on different levels, one of which is beyond our grasp.
I don't believe the issue of determinism vs. free will has ever been resolved.
From a religious standpoint, I think the argument would go something like this:
Imagine you're a parent and you are tasked with watching a group of 5 year olds. You take them to a playground and tell them to go wild and do whatever they want. Now, in this example that playground is the whole world to those kids, while the parent is privy to information they are not. You're familiar with all of these children and 'know' what they are going to do (this analogy isn't perfect). So in the eyes of the children, they have all the freedom and are masters of their own world. However, the parent A) granted them this freedom and B) has and understanding of the outside world with which the children can't interact.
So in this example, the entire world is the playground for humans. We are granted freedom in our earthly world (playground) by our master (parent); and to us it is the ultimate freedom, while god is privy to spiritual understanding that we cannot conceptualization. We have freedom but it is constrained by other limitations. And that way free will can exist, just beneath god's will.
Full disclosure, I don't necessarily believe this to be true. Just that I think that's a simplified version of the argument that determinism and free will can exist. They exist on different levels, one of which is beyond our grasp.
1
Posted on 3/9/17 at 11:59 am to UAtide11
I am not familiar with the term determinism. are you saying you believe predestination is determinism?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 12:05 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Those are not Christian moral values, and if you knew anything about Christian values, you would know this. Have some professed Christians committed those atrocities? I have no doubt. However, so have many atheists, agnostics and non-Christians. Should we ascribe those atrocities to man moral values? You have painted with a wide brush.
The Bible literally condones those actions.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 12:13 pm to drm185
They are not exactly the same, but are very closely related. And for the basis of this discussion can be treated as equivalent.
Predestination = all events have been willed by god
Determinism = all events are the result of previous events; things will unfold a certain way precisely because of their preceding conditions
The implication in my usage being that with determinism and religion, god's will is the fundamental impetus or cause of all ensuing events.
Predestination = all events have been willed by god
Determinism = all events are the result of previous events; things will unfold a certain way precisely because of their preceding conditions
The implication in my usage being that with determinism and religion, god's will is the fundamental impetus or cause of all ensuing events.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 1:34 pm to Pickle_Weasel
It has been my experience that growing up in a Christian family in this part of the country and claiming to be a Christian is the much easier route to go, not the other way around. Most Christians that I know have been brainwashed since birth to believe one thing and one thing only and anyone who challenges that in small town (insert southern state) is looked at as an outsider and a weirdo. Just like you say he is not mentally strong enough to accept faith, they are not mentally strong enough to actually question whether a man could actually part the Red Sea or get eaten by a whale and get spit up on shore a few days later or put 2 of every single living creature on a boat as the entire world gets washed away. At least that is the way it was in my home town. Can you imagine what would happen today if a father strapped his son down and nearly killed his son with a knife and claimed that God told him to do it? Or said that he heard God talking to him in a burning bush? He'd be in a psych ward, not in the bible. A Christian telling someone else to be open minded is hilarious to me considering the people I've had to deal with my entire life that are "Christians" (to include my entire family). I certainly don't have all of the answers, but to hear people claim that they "know" that God exists because of things that happened in their life simply because they quit acting like an idiot and took responsibility for their actions is astounding (my father crows about this constantly as he is a former addict). There are a lot of good things in most religions that will improve anyone's life if they live by those certain rules, but that doesn't mean that God is real or that he is what changed you. It means that you did some common sense things that changed your life for the good. Good for those people. I'm happy for them. I don't think it's going to change where they go when they die, but maybe it will. It's great that they live a good wholesome life.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 2:41 pm to UAtide11
UAtide11, I don't understand predestination to mean that every single event that has ever happened has been according to God's will. I mean of course you would have to say that if God exists and he is in control then everything that comes to pass (good or bad) is only happening because he is allowing it, but I think that starts to get at God's preceptive will vs his decretive will. God decrees certain things to happen and they come to pass. God also shows his will in various precepts. But these two things are not the same. I don't think most folks who believe in predestination as I laid out believe that God "wills" that people should sin or that people should perish. Of course, God allows things to transpire but I don't think that means that he actively caused the thing in question to happen. I think the traditional understanding of predestination is that God actively intercedes on behalf of his elect (i.e. those he saves) but he leaves the unbelievers in their sin and decides not to intervene. While it sounds harsh, it is not unjust in the slightest and God is the creator so he can certainly do as he pleases with his creation.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:15 pm to drm185
To be frank, I reject the notion of an intervening, personal god. I was just trying to give a reasonable argument as to how one would reconcile the seemingly contradictory tenets of omnipotence and free will.
I think the following is a cop-out.
I think your statement is 100% true, that seems to be the traditional understanding. I just don't subscribe to it.
Personally, I feel that is a way to give credit for the positive (and occasionally cite them as evidence), while insulating from the negative. I just find it hard to believe that a benevolent god would intercede help Ray Lewis win a Super Bowl or Lil' Wayne win a Grammy, but will let innocent children perish in often very cruel ways.
And the position is unassailable, because on the one hand "all things happen through god" (so he's responsible for everything) and "because man sins" (so god isn't responsible because it's humanity's fault). then you have the notion of "god works in mysterious ways" so despite being described as infinitely benevolent, you can't question objectively horrible things that happen (either because he interceded or failed to intercede).
I'll be the first to admit to my simple-mindedness, but the whole thing reeks of "This is the exact nature of existence, don't question it because it's beyond our collective understanding"
I think the following is a cop-out.
quote:
I think the traditional understanding of predestination is that God actively intercedes on behalf of his elect (i.e. those he saves) but he leaves the unbelievers in their sin and decides not to intervene.
I think your statement is 100% true, that seems to be the traditional understanding. I just don't subscribe to it.
Personally, I feel that is a way to give credit for the positive (and occasionally cite them as evidence), while insulating from the negative. I just find it hard to believe that a benevolent god would intercede help Ray Lewis win a Super Bowl or Lil' Wayne win a Grammy, but will let innocent children perish in often very cruel ways.
And the position is unassailable, because on the one hand "all things happen through god" (so he's responsible for everything) and "because man sins" (so god isn't responsible because it's humanity's fault). then you have the notion of "god works in mysterious ways" so despite being described as infinitely benevolent, you can't question objectively horrible things that happen (either because he interceded or failed to intercede).
I'll be the first to admit to my simple-mindedness, but the whole thing reeks of "This is the exact nature of existence, don't question it because it's beyond our collective understanding"
Posted on 3/9/17 at 3:16 pm to UAtide11
Faith is a tough thing to measure... i mean you might could use circumstances, brain waves, brain imaging, polling data, and come up with some obscure theory of God that you think is measureable... but the core belief doesn't change (faith in God) The only thing that might be up for debate is translations in the literature. How one interprets the meaning of the written word. We aren't doing math and having to form "proofs" to test the theory. We use faith. How can some not understand this? I'm not gonna try to convince you... i can point you in the right direction. I'll tell you a little about what I believe if you are interested but not on a blog, if you don't want to believe it that is fine. I'm not an evangelical and i'm not gonna tell you that you are going to hell either because i too myself have my doubts and it isn't my place to judge your faith or beliefs in God. I'll gladly live my life believing that we have a creator and that if i follow some basic rules of not being a jackass that if there is a heaven then the benefits outweigh the risks. Do you like ice cream?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:35 pm to UAtide11
UAtide11, I can definitely understand your point of view because the world often seems to be cruel and the poor and marginalized often times only seem to get more marginalized.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 4:58 pm to yatesdog38
yatesdog38,
being a good person or in your words following "some basic rules of not being a jackass" will not get you into heaven, though this is commonly preached as if it were the gospel.
Why do you think Jesus, the third person of the trinity, would utterly humiliate himself and become a man and fool around with keeping every commandment and living a sinless life and suffer death on a cross if all it takes for us to enter heaven is "being a good person"? The premise of the bible is that even the best of us are not "good people" at the core and we need a savior. The message is that jesus lived the life we should have lived and died the death we should have died. Jesus was literally forsaken by the Father so that we wouldn't have to be.
being a good person or in your words following "some basic rules of not being a jackass" will not get you into heaven, though this is commonly preached as if it were the gospel.
Why do you think Jesus, the third person of the trinity, would utterly humiliate himself and become a man and fool around with keeping every commandment and living a sinless life and suffer death on a cross if all it takes for us to enter heaven is "being a good person"? The premise of the bible is that even the best of us are not "good people" at the core and we need a savior. The message is that jesus lived the life we should have lived and died the death we should have died. Jesus was literally forsaken by the Father so that we wouldn't have to be.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 7:27 pm to yatesdog38
I really don't care what people believe. They can believe in whatever mythology that makes them feel better. I don't understand it, but I'm not against them doing it.
What I am against is anyone trying to demand that others also follow their beliefs of try to get specials rules made by the government for their beliefs. For instance, creationism has no business being taught in public schools unless of course it is a world religion class of some sorts and all major religions are covered just the same way. science classes definitely have no business teaching creationism.
Believe in Jesus, believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, believe that Bigfoot is a god. Just don't expect me to believe it too without presenting me some concrete evidence to support it. Faith is not evidence.
What I am against is anyone trying to demand that others also follow their beliefs of try to get specials rules made by the government for their beliefs. For instance, creationism has no business being taught in public schools unless of course it is a world religion class of some sorts and all major religions are covered just the same way. science classes definitely have no business teaching creationism.
Believe in Jesus, believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, believe that Bigfoot is a god. Just don't expect me to believe it too without presenting me some concrete evidence to support it. Faith is not evidence.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 9:20 pm to AshLSU
quote:Where does that happen?
For instance, creationism has no business being taught in public schools
Posted on 3/9/17 at 9:45 pm to AshLSU
quote:
Faith is not evidence.
Faith is the permission Christians give each other to believe things on bad evidence.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 10:59 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
Where does that happen?
Many republican senators and representatives along with plenty of Christian groups have fought to get it into public schools.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 7:37 am to AshLSU
quote:So in other words, it's not going to happen. Personally, I don't think it should be either. Few public teachers that I have seen would be qualified to teach on the subject.
Many republican senators and representatives along with plenty of Christian groups have fought to get it into public schools.
Is string theory taught in public schools?
Posted on 3/10/17 at 7:50 am to Covingtontiger77
It's all hooey to me. I have no issue with anyone believing whatever they want, but when they out it on display like Freeze, it is almost guaranteed to be fake.
He knows that he can use his "Christian faith" to get what he wants out of simple-minded people.
He knows that he can use his "Christian faith" to get what he wants out of simple-minded people.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 9:26 am to Diamondawg
quote:
Is string theory taught in public schools?
That's not even close to the same thing. String theory is a scientific attempt to explain the universe that is based on mathematical equations. Creationism is mythology that has no evidence to support it. In fact, all evidence points against it. When string theory is taught, its flaws and contradictions are also taught with it. If a teacher wanted to say "some people believe humans just all of a sudden appeared on earth about 6000 years ago, but physical evidence does not support that idea" that's fine.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 10:25 am to AshLSU
AshLSU,
Logic alone would lead most people to the conclusion that this world was produced by a creator. I am not trying to be a smart alec. I am just being honest with you. Many people see the order in the natural world and the harmony and intricacies of how things work and the only logical conclusion that flows from the observance of these things is that there is a creator behind all of this.
Furthermore, the large majority of people feel the desire to "be somebody" or "make a difference" or "make their life count"-- use whatever phrase or terminology you want, you get the picture. Most people in fact live as if life matters. Most people (even most atheists) don't live as if life is meaningless. If we all are here today merely by chance, I'm not sure I understand why we care so much about honesty and justice and fairness and making sure we "make a name for ourselves" in our careers or hobbies, etc.
Many people feel the tension in their lives of unmet desires. They feel the tension of wanting happiness and not being able to find it. They have experienced the let down that inevitably occurs when they place their ultimate hope in their hobby or their money or sex or marriage or anything besides God. C.S. Lewis once said: “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.”
As far as I understand it, science can only test things that can be duplicated and therefore science will never be able to prove how something can be created from nothing. Science can not create a repeatable test showing how cells can just randomly appear and then transform first into tadpoles and then into every other living creature that we observe today.
Logic alone would lead most people to the conclusion that this world was produced by a creator. I am not trying to be a smart alec. I am just being honest with you. Many people see the order in the natural world and the harmony and intricacies of how things work and the only logical conclusion that flows from the observance of these things is that there is a creator behind all of this.
Furthermore, the large majority of people feel the desire to "be somebody" or "make a difference" or "make their life count"-- use whatever phrase or terminology you want, you get the picture. Most people in fact live as if life matters. Most people (even most atheists) don't live as if life is meaningless. If we all are here today merely by chance, I'm not sure I understand why we care so much about honesty and justice and fairness and making sure we "make a name for ourselves" in our careers or hobbies, etc.
Many people feel the tension in their lives of unmet desires. They feel the tension of wanting happiness and not being able to find it. They have experienced the let down that inevitably occurs when they place their ultimate hope in their hobby or their money or sex or marriage or anything besides God. C.S. Lewis once said: “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.”
As far as I understand it, science can only test things that can be duplicated and therefore science will never be able to prove how something can be created from nothing. Science can not create a repeatable test showing how cells can just randomly appear and then transform first into tadpoles and then into every other living creature that we observe today.
Posted on 3/10/17 at 11:08 am to drm185
Never said there was no possibilty of a "creator". Just argued that to believe humans could understand or comprehend a being of that nature enough to build a structural belief system around it is egocentric at best.
You are fur that something can't come from nothing. If there is a creator, then what created it?
You are fur that something can't come from nothing. If there is a creator, then what created it?
Posted on 3/10/17 at 12:07 pm to drm185
quote:
Logic alone would lead most people to the conclusion that this world was produced by a creator.
That doesn't necessarily make it the correct conclusion. The religious and non-religious are actually fairly close on this issue without even knowing it, but the minute differences of belief permeate nearly all topics.
How did the universe get here?
Religious: God created it. Who created god, and out of what? He created himself out of nothing
Non-religious: The universe created itself out of nothing.
This is over-simplified of course, but they are really just one step removed from one another. Also I'm only discussing god as the creator, not all the other attributes various religions have bestowed upon him over the years.
Some of the religious are unsatisfied with not addressing "what was before the 'big bang'?". Nothing is not an acceptable answer for them, for a number of different reasons. Some of the non-religious are unsatisfied with the idea that god can create himself out of nothing, while the universe cannot. Basically it's the same answer, but the religious are saying it's god (who, by the way, loves us the most and we are his chosen people and his favorite, and you have to follow these rules and you're supposed to pay x amount so we can continue to tell people about him), how convenient.
quote:
Most people (even most atheists) don't live as if life is meaningless.
What would living life as though it were meaningless even look like? Would we be able to identify it even if we saw it?I think everybody makes their own 'meaning' in life. Even the devoutly religious are choosing to make their life about religion.
quote:
therefore science will never be able to prove how something can be created from nothing. Science can not create a repeatable test showing how cells can just randomly appear and then transform
They are working on it.
quote:
first into tadpoles and then into every other living creature that we observe today.
To be fair, evolution got a 2.5 billion year head start. We've only known about cells for like 300 years. If we had billions of years to observe, I bet we could get fairly close.
This post was edited on 3/10/17 at 12:10 pm
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News