Jump to content

God's Sovereignty And Free Will


BillM

Recommended Posts

Hmmm...if the Golden Rule has been almost 100% universally accepted as a moral and ethical standard, why is it that so few people actually "practice" it? At least from my observation, it doesn't seem that most people give it much thought at all. But, I guess that's the problem with standards, they are hard to live up to. I used to have plenty of standards, but very few principles.

 

I also think that even if people practiced the Golden Rule, the manner in which they want to be treated might differ widely from the desires of others. And there also seems like there might be a kind of "quid pro quo" thing implicit in the Golden Rule that could be flawed. You can't really expect anything in return for offering cooperation, kindness and generosity.

 

I'm wondering if there is a "natural disposition" that would arise in people, assuming that they had navigated the purgative path necessary for the beginnings of illumination and character traits like wisdom and compassion to manifest. If that's the case, there wouldn't need to be any "standard" by which to engage reality. There would just be this idea called the Golden Rule, but it would eventually be forgotten.

 

I think that there might be a definite need for such purgation before anyone counsels adherence to the Golden Rule. But then, I 've always been a bit of a John of the Cross fan, so I suppose I'm prejudiced.

 

Steve

I don't see a quid pro quo in Matthew 7:12. Where do you find it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the 'Golden Rule"? This is pretty close to being an objective morality.

 

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

 

I think it's good in theory and something to strive towards or keep in mind, but even this rule needs to be broken sometimes. I doubt any of us would like to be imprisoned, have certain behaviours outlawed, be sued or have other legal action taken against us, or have war made against us. Yet I think sometimes those things, those tough decisions, need to be made for what we consider society's good. So we carry out these actions thinking they're for the greater good, but they are actions we would not like done to us I'm sure.

 

Take one of the many genocidal purges attributed to God in the OT. I don't imagine that if I was a Hittite, or from the tribe of the Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites or Jebusites, that I would like another people (the Israelites) to attack and wipe out every living man, woman, child and animal in my tribe (and in some cases take my virgin women as rape slaves), yet clearly the Israelities needed to do unto others what they themselves would not like done to them because God wanted them to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not limiting myself to Matthew, Burl. Long before the "Golden Rule", humans discovered that adopting a cooperative spirit as a way of dealing with others turned out to be for the benefit of everyone, and probably solidified the survival of our species up to this point. The "quid pro quo" that I'm talking about is a necessary requirement for survival-mode cooperation to take place. If I'm going to do something for you, I expect something in return. This is the basis for all of trade and commerce. I'm thinking the "Golden Rule" is simply a more elegant and formal way of expressing the same thing, and has since worked its way into many cultures.

 

But, my real question here is "why, if accepted and adopted, do so few people practice it?" What is missing if this is a "universal"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Take one of the many genocidal purges attributed to God in the OT.<<

 

Here you are dealing with mythic history, the Israelite concept of holy war which cannot be political or have any booty retained, and the commanded destruction of the Nephilim and their non-human genotype. The context and content are both incredibly complicated. One book on this subject is promoted by our gracious hosts, and it would certainly take a book to cover the subject, but the fact that it concerns the extirpation of semi-human/demigod bloodlines leads me to dismiss it as irrelevant to everyone not hooked on watching 'Ancient Aliens' History Channel.

 

Perhaps you could start a book study on that one? I think it is by John Crossen. I'll join in, but I don't want to lead it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the 'Golden Rule"? This is pretty close to being an objective morality.

 

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

 

This is what i have found as the meaning for defining Objective morality. " It is is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion,"

Burl, i agree the golden rule is universally found in most major religions using similar words. HERE IS FOUND 8 OF THEM

Yet to me, religions with such similarities doesn't make it objective, just commonly subjective. I'm not sure such a thing as "objective morality" can exists in this human realm of sentient beings. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>But, my real question here is "why, if accepted and adopted, do so few people practice it?" What is missing if this is a "universal"?<<

 

Unsurprisingly, my answer is the denial of Jesus Christ and a God who works through society. Feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit the infirm and those in prison. No quid pro quo.

 

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.", Gilbert K. Chesterton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burl,

Just for my personal understanding of where your response is coming from and some clarification .... Are you saying that Jesus (the) Christ is the only answer and that there is none other to follow that will lead to God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burl,

Just for my personal understanding of where your response is coming from and some clarification .... Are you saying that Jesus (the) Christ is the only answer and that there is none other to follow that will lead to God?

Jesus Christ is God, not an answer or a path to follow.

 

There is no answer and there is no path because one is already in Christ. You too, JosephM. You are alive in Christ and you are alive in God. Whatever path your mind thinks you are on makes no difference because you cannot make a path to where you already are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so it seems that even the "pathless" path comes to a dead end!

Good one, Steve. The "path" analogy is common but inadequate. What we are all really seeking is deepening the experience of conscious contact with God by engaging every possible aspect of human existence. Sensation, intellect, emotion, love - spiritual formation is more like going to the gym than walking a path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pretty much agree with you in your last post, Burl. I don't think there is a path either, but we do have to communicate sometimes with metaphors so people understand what we are trying to say. And yes, "spiritual formation" is indeed much more.

 

What I meant by my last thread was more along the lines of an end to the discussion or conversation. I think that once a person asks another to take as axiomatic something that is far more complex than the simple statement "Jesus Christ is God", it pretty much ends the conversation and begins a debate. And then of course you run into various barriers to belief in people which are also pretty complex, and touchy.

 

My personal view is that Jesus was/is not God. That's not based on any barrier that I am aware of, but merely studying theology and Christology over the years, including some alternative views put forward by some modern (progressive) people. I find some of these explanations more plausible than believing that Jesus is God. I simply don't believe the man, Jesus was God anymore than you or I are God. It may sound arrogant (and probably is), but I think Christianity has gotten this wrong for literally centuries, and most Christians have it wrong still.

 

But, my opinions are just that. No one can say for sure which view is correct. We can just agree to disagree I suppose.

 

The one thing that I am curious to know, Burl, is what you meant by "Jesus Christ". Are you saying that Christ is representative of Jesus, the anointed one, or is it something a bit more esoteric? I'm just curious. It's no big deal.

 

Thanks,

Steve

Edited by SteveS55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ is God, not an answer or a path to follow.

 

There is no answer and there is no path because one is already in Christ. You too, JosephM. You are alive in Christ and you are alive in God. Whatever path your mind thinks you are on makes no difference because you cannot make a path to where you already are.

Burl.

That raises another question for clarification.

If the man Jesus who was known as the Christ is God and i also am alive in Christ and God as you say could one also say that JosephM is God ? If not, was Jesus different than all other men that have ever lived on this earth and if so how was he any different?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Take one of the many genocidal purges attributed to God in the OT.<<

 

Here you are dealing with mythic history, the Israelite concept of holy war which cannot be political or have any booty retained, and the commanded destruction of the Nephilim and their non-human genotype. The context and content are both incredibly complicated. One book on this subject is promoted by our gracious hosts, and it would certainly take a book to cover the subject, but the fact that it concerns the extirpation of semi-human/demigod bloodlines leads me to dismiss it as irrelevant to everyone not hooked on watching 'Ancient Aliens' History Channel.

 

Perhaps you could start a book study on that one? I think it is by John Crossen. I'll join in, but I don't want to lead it.

 

I actually am pretty sure too that those genocidal rampages were mythical - not so much because of destroying supernatural human demigods or whatever, but more likely an over-reach on Israel's behalf in their storytelling. Certainly the archaeological evidence from that era does not suggest any of the mass wipe routs that the Bible says happened.

 

But my point was that morality in the bible has changed over time. Where once it was acceptable to stone people to death, that is now recognised as barbaric. Where once women were treated like property, we now accept that they are equal persons. Where slavery was once endorsed (even in Jesus' day), we now consider that practice horrid and cruel. Quite clearly much moral landscape of the Holy Bible has changed and thankfully matured as we as a people mature and continue to evolve and develop.

 

To me it is pretty clearly that morality is not a fixed set of goalposts, but is ever-moving and developing, sometimes forwards and sometimes backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burl.

That raises another question for clarification.

If the man Jesus who was known as the Christ is God and i also am alive in Christ and God as you say could one also say that JosephM is God ? If not, was Jesus different than all other men that have ever lived on this earth and if so how was he any different?

Thanks.

No, you are not God. If you were, you would not need to ask questions.

 

But if I am wrong and JosephM is God, please send me a pony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it is pretty clearly that morality is not a fixed set of goalposts, but is ever-moving and developing, sometimes forwards and sometimes backwards.

I can agree with that. I see morality as fixed, but God in His mercy titrates his judgment and revelation to accomodate our moral evolution. Pretty much the same facts but a slightly different viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are not God. If you were, you would not need to ask questions.

 

But if I am wrong and JosephM is God, please send me a pony.

That's funny. I seem to remember it being recorded that Jesus asked questions also. Since that is what you believe ... Why don't you ask him to send you a pony and see if you get it? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree with that. I see morality as fixed, but God in His mercy titrates his judgment and revelation to accomodate our moral evolution. Pretty much the same facts but a slightly different viewpoint.

If morality is fixed, but God is only drip feeding us the full picture, then he has only revealed a poor-cousin version of proper morality thus far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If morality is fixed, but God is only drip feeding us the full picture, then he has only revealed a poor-cousin version of proper morality thus far?

Look to life. Babies drink milk, then cereal, and more solid foods are introduced as they are able to physically handle them. The weakness of humanity is the issue. Adopting a moral code which fully realized God's righteousness would be like trying to drink from a firehose.

 

Relevant Scriptural meditations are the six antithesese in Matthew 5 and the book of Romans in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my take ... the universe is chaotic; we are also chaotic.

 

Sure we can find patterns within that chaos. Some of those patterns we anthropomorphize and call moral or immoral. But the vast majority we call amoral. And those patterns we think capable of morality arose out of the milieu we think of amoral and ultimately will return there.

 

But to talk to the title of this thread ... does God have free will? Does god have free will? Does any specific pattern within the chaos we call the universe have free will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my take ... the universe is chaotic; we are also chaotic.

 

Gv Sure we can find patterns within that chaos. Some of those patterns we anthropomorphize and call moral or immoral. But the vast majority we call amoral. And those patterns we think capable of morality arose out of the milieu we think of amoral and ultimately will return there.

 

But to talk to the title of this thread ... does God have free will? Does god have free will? Does any specific pattern within the chaos we call the universe have free will?

Chaos? Fractals maybe, but science has eliminated chaos as an explanation for creation. The chance of a single amino acid forming by chance was calculated by Hoyle (the astronomer, not the card sharp) and Wingrimshe (sp?) at over 10^e40. That is far beyond impossible in scientific terms.

 

Life is not the result of chaos. To invert the second law of thermodynamics and have materiality which not only defies entropy but reverses it? Certainly chaos could not produce life.

 

Free will? Absolutely. Some fatalists/predestinationalists feel it's is only an illusion but the Calvinist argument is lame. Yes, we can change the future. The skiier chooses how to tackle the mountan, and the surfer chooses how to ride the wave. The end result is predetermined, but free will is what makes the experience spiritual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Babies move to solid food within about 6 months, yet for all of the millions of year of mankind's existence we are still waiting for God to reveal a better version of morality?

I am on a limited number of posts per hour here. Antispam defense grid.

 

Women's right's, gay marriage, ecumenical cooperation . . . that's just the last half-century and you think are still waiting for the revelation of better version of morality since before the existence of homo sapiens? I think you are not at all serious and are just generating was absurd generalizations.

 

Millions of years indeed. Get real, dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chaos? Fractals maybe, but science has eliminated chaos as an explanation for creation. The chance of a single amino acid forming by chance was calculated by Hoyle (the astronomer, not the card sharp) and Wingrimshe (sp?) at over 10^e40. That is far beyond impossible in scientific terms.

 

Fractals I would consider a subset of chaos. While not explicitly, I suspect you are confounding random and chaotic. Chaotic to some degree is predictable while random by definition is not. As to Hoyle's argument it has several errors in its assumptions. Any one who happens to be interested a summary of the errors can be found here.

 

Here is nice video summarizing how life might have started. Please ignore the first 2:45 minute, as that is mainly a diatribe.

Plus the music in nice Christian music.

 

Life is not the result of chaos. To invert the second law of thermodynamics and have materiality which not only defies entropy but reverses it? Certainly chaos could not produce life.

 

Firstly the apparent reversal of the free energy is a really horrible misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. Even most reasonable Christian apologetic arguments have abandoned this nonsense. If you truly want to understand where you might be wrong can I suggest you read this Socratic discussion by Professor Lambert.

 

Free will? Absolutely. Some fatalists/predestinationalists feel it's is only an illusion but the Calvinist argument is lame. Yes, we can change the future. The skiier chooses how to tackle the mountan, and the surfer chooses how to ride the wave. The end result is predetermined, but free will is what makes the experience spiritual.

 

Here again I surprised by the arguments you present. The problem is not whether we make choices or not. We plainly do, but it is the nature of the choice that is at issue. Can we make choices independently of the causal universe we live in.

 

the result is predetermined ...? I can't say that, I don't know the universe well enough. But I suspect this is false. If you truly believe the results of your actions are predetermined and you disbelieve in free will then you must have an unusual definition of free will.

 

Of course our actions alter the future, so do tsunamis, and dirty great big meteors crashing into the Earth. Again changing the future is no basis to define free will.

 

... free will makes the experience spiritual ? This is a new one on me.

Edited by romansh
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am on a limited number of posts per hour here. Antispam defense grid.

Women's right's, gay marriage, ecumenical cooperation . . . that's just the last half-century and you think are still waiting for the revelation of better version of morality since before the existence of homo sapiens? I think you are not at all serious and are just generating was absurd generalizations.

Millions of years indeed. Get real, dude.

Burl, it was you that said we are waiting for a better version of morality. You said that God can't fully reveal morality to us yet because we wouldn't be able to handle it, that's why he's drip feeding morality to us. Therefore, according to you, there is a better version of morality available but God is yet to reveal it - perhaps when we are able to handle that firehose.

 

I am being very real when I say homosapiens have existed for millions of years yet still God hasn't revealed his full version of morality (based on what you said).

 

It can't be both things Burl. Morality can't be fixed but at the same time waiting to be improved. Fixed means unchangeable, but if as you say God has a more fuller morality that he is presently holding back on, then morality must change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burl, it was you that said we are waiting for a better version of morality. You said that God can't fully reveal morality to us yet because we wouldn't be able to handle it, that's why he's drip feeding morality to us. Therefore, according to you, there is a better version of morality available but God is yet to reveal it - perhaps when we are able to handle that firehose.

I am being very real when I say homosapiens have existed for millions of years yet still God hasn't revealed his full version of morality (based on what you said).

It can't be both things Burl. Morality can't be fixed but at the same time waiting to be improved. Fixed means unchangeable, but if as you say God has a more fuller morality that he is presently holding back on, then morality must change.

Spiritual formation is a skill, like learning to play piano. First you learn to find middle C. Then you learn scales and simple melodies, and move up as far as you are able.

 

The piano of righteousness stays the same, but the piano lessons do get more and more demanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service