May 31st, 2006, 12:29 AM
I have been thinking about it lately and I think a lot of people who are religious use their religion as a scapegoat to avoid making decisions in their own life. I have a hard time believing that a God ultimately controls my life and I have pre-determined events already lined up for me. Personally, I want to live life for me and not believe that a higher entity will control my fate. I make my own decisions; God doesn't. I know this is a loaded topic but I want to see what you guys think.
May 31st, 2006, 01:44 AM
Actually the division between those who believe in fate or determinism and those who believe in free will and choice cuts right across the lines between religion, science and atheism. Religion has nothing to do with avoiding the making of decisions in your life. Religion is just one of many excuses that people use to avoid choices and decisions. This has much more to do with basic human psychology and repression than anything to do with religion, science or atheism.Originally Posted by Mick_Mills
May 31st, 2006, 04:09 PM
You are quite right from your perspective. I just think your perspective needs work.
Jan.
So what is the view from your perspective?
June 1st, 2006, 09:51 PM
You must first decide to become religious. That's an exceedingly large life decision. I find it hard to believe that any decision after that one should result in the same person being unable to acomplish another. A religious person is quite capable of decision making, however they like to thank their gods for the right ones. It's never a worshipped deity's fault for a wrong decision. .........Pretty simple.
June 2nd, 2006, 12:53 AM
So the difference between Jan and I is a good example of the division I was talking about in the religious sector.
As I understand it from another discussion with Jan, Jan believes in achieving a oneness with God so that all of ones choices are made by the part of oneself that is God rather than the flesh which is not God. I believe in a different kind of personal relationship with God, more like teacher and student, where the teacher even allows the student to make mistakes as part of the lesson which He has to teach.
The difference between us is a little bit like the one between Augustine and Pelagius. One emphasizing the utter inability of man and necessity of the intervention and contol by God, and the other emphasizing the ultimate importance of man's free will. Augustine got the church to declare Pelagius a heretic, but the majority of Christianty has moved to a more moderate position between these two extremes, although similar extremes do still exist within Christianity today (such as between Calvinists on one side and the Open Theists on the other).
That God doesn't control lives, and we create our pre-destination.
Jan.
June 3rd, 2006, 01:32 PM
mitchellmckain,
With all due respect, speak for yourself, not for me, because I know you don't understand what I believe, and I strongly believe you only understand your own belief because it is tailored by yourself.As I understand it from another discussion with Jan, Jan believes in achieving a oneness with God so that all of ones choices are made by the part of oneself that is God rather than the flesh which is not God.
Jan.
June 3rd, 2006, 02:01 PM
Jan is correct. The above post was was made before I fully understood his game. He doesn't like explaining what he believes because he prefers to pass judgement on other people without giving them any susbtance on which to return the favor. So the only thing I really know about Jan is that he studies and uses the Bible along with Hindu and Islamic sacred text as the basis upon which to pass judgement upon the ideas and people of this world. As a result I also know that he has contempt for the theory of evolution and anyone who gives credence to it or anything like it.
Jan is also correct about me in so far as my opinion about things will be quite original and only rarely something quoted from some book. But I think that Jan's opinion is also worth listening to, because of his unique perspective of having studied such a varied collection of the sacred texts from different religions.
Play nice, now, y'all, m-kay?
Regarding determinism and free will, I'm a determinist, but I feel very profoundly in my own power, and am a very proactive being. Not every postmodernist is an interlectual who believes cars are not real.
Mr U
As near as I have been able to determine, the only decision God makes for anyone is whether they believe in Him or not. I agree with some of Mick’s original statement, that some people use God as an excuse to avoid making a decision.
I have so many times heard someone say, “God told me to do this,” only to find out later it was a bad idea. One is left with the conclusion that God is very busy giving out bad advice, or people are giving God credit for that which He does not do.
Even as a Christian myself, it becomes obvious to me that God does not control my life. He certainly would have made better decisions on numerous matters than I did. I would be much better off if He did control my life. Unfortunately, he has left me with the ability to defy his moral sovereignty with no commensurate ability to thwart his absolute sovereignty.
Being a Christian, however, usually should (and for some of us does) make decision making more difficult as we struggle between choices which please us and choices which we think may be more in line with what a Christian should do.
God does not choose whom we shall marry; what line of work we shall do; what city we shall live in. He does give us some guidelines to follow on some kinds of decisions and provides directions on conducts which are more likely to provide productive results versus those conducts which are more likely to lead to counterproductive results.
Mick’s only responsibility is to himself which makes his decisions easier. He needs only to consider that which he wants to do and use his common sense and experience.
Mick’s desire to live life for himself is in opposition to the Biblical perspective that we should live our lives to serve others. But then, even we Christians struggle with that.
By "whether they believe in Him or not", I assume you are referring to the Calvinist position of unconditional election and irresistable grace. But do you know how completely wierd it sounds? You make all the choices in your life except the one that makes you a Christian??????? Whew!!!!
I can understand complete adherence to God sovereignty over all human choices or over none (recognizing human free will), but I find your mixed position incredible!
I of course am not Calvinist at all and I believe in the critical importance of human free will. I reject all five points of Calvinism, though I come extremely close on total depravity and perseverance of the saints. So I am something of moderate. I accept that God predestines many events but I think that for the most part, God gives us privacy in (chooses not to know) what we will choose, in order to preserve our free will from the irresistable influence of His power.
I belive that fallen man is full of habits of self-deception and manipulation which makes his ideas and concepts of God little more that self-serving delusions and that his efforts to appease or manipulate God are meaningless. Only an act of God can break through this web of lies and delusion (the atonement on the cross and resurrection of Jesus being the most important of God's intervensions). But just because God must make an intervention for salvation to be possible does not mean that He completely annihilates our free will. We may need God to liberate us from these delusions for at least a moment to make a free choice for salvation possible, but I still think that God requires us to exercise our free will and make that choice. So you can see that my understanding of utter depravity is slightly different than the Calvinist position.
Perseverence of the saints seems mostly reasonable in principle but I have practical difficulties with it. I think the nature of salvation is essentially being in the hands of God and so it is inconceivable that God should fail or "drop" someone. But I have problems with the fact that this doctrine tend to support putting faith in ones own salvation and acting like one has God bound to some legal contract. I do not think that anyone can ever be in a postion to say that "God must save me". That is devoid of the fear of God and sounds like the efforts of human religions to manipulate God.
Chuckles, Mitchell. You certainly express agreement with a lot of the points of Calvinism, although I think there are actually more than five points in the overall picture.
I sort of misspoke when I was talking about God’s moral sovereignty and absolute sovereignty. I was using the wrong terms to depict God’s sovereign will and His moral will.
Perhaps this bifurcation of God’s will into two aspects is a more recent explanation. I am not sure how long it has been around. To me, however, it does explain how God can be in control and we can still choose to disobey. It explains how we can retain free will to make decisions, but cannot make decisions which will thwart God’s sovereign will.
I think for much of my Christian life, I attempted to retain the idea that I had some choice in the matter of my salvation. And to be honest, I notice that preachers in many Calvinist movements will ask non-believers to make a decision.
When I look at the salvation process from the extreme ends of Calvinism and Armenianism I find that Calvinists are all wrapped up in emphasizing God’s role while the Armenians are all wrapped up in emphasizing man’s role. The question eventually boils down to that moment when a person crosses the line from non-believer to believer – at that moment has he really decided to believe in God or has he merely realized that he belongs to God?
What I find interesting is that both Calvinists and Armenians seem to use the same verses to express their dissimilar positions. Both, for example, use Ephesians 2:8-9. As an Armenian, it always disturbed me where it says “saved by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, lest any man should boast.” I could not find in there any room for my decision making process. Not even the faith which allows me to believe is mine, but a gift from God, without which I could not believe. And, having been given that faith, do I have any other choice than to believe?
Both Armenians and Calvinists agree that there is nothing we can do on our own accord to earn salvation. I think, however, that to the Armenian total depravity means the inability to be “good enough” for salvation while to the Calvinist total depravity is more related to an unwillingness to want salvation. Both seem accurate – left to our own devices we are neither capable of nor willing to commune with God on His terms.
I am not sure I quite understand perseverance of the saints, either. This is somehow wrapped up in the idea of eternal security, a doctrine that can be easily perverted into a false sense of security that one can accept a ticket to heaven and then live like hell. However, the opposite side of the coin, conditional salvation, can lead some to be fearful of doing anything for fear it might cause them to lose their salvation. I think the Calvinist answer is this: If God saved you and gave you eternal life and then took it back, you didn't really have eternal life.
Calvinism (as well as Armenianism) is a very complex systemization of Christianity. When I was an Armenian, I was very upset at what I thought Calvanism taught, especially eternal security. I then began attending a Baptist church which is basically Calvinist. As I listened to what those people said, I sort of became an Armenivist, clinging to Armenianism as my base Christian philosophy, but accepting that some of the Calvinist explanations made good sense and seemed to straight-forward Biblical principles. I slowly have swung to a more Calminian position in which my base theology seems to be more Calvinist than Armenian.
My experience in attending both of these kinds of churches is such that I am not sure who misunderstands their own positions the most or who misunderstands the other position the most.
And these atheists think that being a Christian is easy!!! Trying to understand evolution is child’s play when compared to trying to understand God.
daytonturner: "He certainly would have made better decisions on numerous matters than I did. I would be much better off if He did control my life. Unfortunately, he has left me with the ability to defy his moral sovereignty with no commensurate ability to thwart his absolute sovereignty."
I am pleased with the fact that you said some people use god as an excuse to avoid making a decision, but I can't get over the fact you said you would be much better off if He did control your life. What?! Wouldn't you rather have free will to live for yourself than be controlled by something that supposedly exists? Also, making decisions on your own does not necessarily defy his "moral sovereignty". Why can't you make your own moral sovereignty that does not clash with your religious beliefs? Living for something else, like a deity, is just as bad as living for someone else. By allowing a religion or a person to determine your course of action makes life frill and unimportant to the follower.
OK, Mick, just a hypothetical:
Suppose you were at the track and playing the ponies. You have been doing you own handicapping and holding your own -- win a few, lose a few. But then you meet someone who is able to pick the winner of every race, 100 percent of the time. Now who would you rather have controlling your bets -- yourself or the guy who picks a winner every time?
The problem is that God does not generally do this for believers or non-believers. The fact that Christians sometimes make stupid mistakes and sometimes non-believers make wise decisions suggests that God is not directly involved in decision making to the extent that he overrides the stupid decisions of Christians or undercuts the wise decision of non-believers.
Mick said:
A person who takes this attitude into the job market has a name -- unemployed.By allowing a religion or a person to determine your course of action makes life frill and unimportant to the follower.
As I previously mentioned:
Daytoner's version:A religious person is quite capable of decision making, however they like to thank their gods for the right ones. It's never a worshipped deity's fault for a wrong decision. .........Pretty simple.
Much the same thing. It's easy to blame yourself for making unwise decisions, not so easy to blame the big guy for the same. I'd just like to see people take credit for their decisions, good or bad.The fact that Christians sometimes make stupid mistakes and sometimes non-believers make wise decisions suggests that God is not directly involved in decision making to the extent that he overrides the stupid decisions of Christians or undercuts the wise
Well, we are pretty much on the same page here. However, I would suggest that if one were to apply certain principles found in the Bible concerning various topics, whether he is Christian or otherwise, he woud enhance his chances for a successful decision.
Principles are not solely the domain of the bible. There are people who have never read a verse that have made better decisions than say Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggart, or that Applewhite guy looking for god hiding behind comets. All of the aforementioned making dubious decisions at best with the aid of the bible but in their moment they were decisions thought best, principles included.
If one misapplies or perverts any set of principles, the outcome will be other than expected. Somehow, it seems fitting and appropriate that people misapplying Godly principals in the name of God should utterly fail. Anyone misapplying scientific principles is also likely to fail in that scientific endeavor.
The fact that someone has failed by misapplying a principal does not negate the validity of the principal, only the application.
Should I condemn science because some idiot misapplies a principal and causes an accident or creates some negative outcome? God forbid. So why should anyone condemn God when some idiot misapplies a Godly principal?
It always amazes me how some people can cite examples of alleged Christians who they obviously know are operating outside the bounds of reasonable Christianity and use that as an excuse to criticise Christianity.
A quack eurologist literally killed my father by removing his one working kidney without realizing the other one was not working and doing this in an area where no dialysis was available. So do I use that to condemn the entirety of practicing eurologists? Or do I do the sane thing, which is to recognize that this guy was a quack who does not represent the general population of eurologists.
I would not accept that David Koresh, Jim Jones, or the Heaven's Gate group are remotely representative of mainstream Christianity nor are they even examples of mainstream Christianity. I did not even realize that Heaven's Gate went under the guise of Christianity.
I agree that people who have never read the Bible often unknowingly apply Godly principles. They are not secrets of the universe revealed only to God's followers via the Bible. Often they are just common sense common knowledge. If anyone properly applies Godly principles, they will work whether they are applied by a Christian or an atheist.
So, in the decision making process that Mick was concerned about, the person who properly applies valid principles should reasonably expect a desirable result. The person who improperly applies such principles or defies such principles should reasonably expect failure.
Exactly. You can't say it better than that.
You could throw away every bible in existence and people will use common sense and knowledge to a much higher degree in my opinion. Decide without looking for approval, use what experience has taught you. Its not an extraordinry supernatural heavensent revelation. Its as if some would have us running around aimlessly trying to figure out life's decisions if God wasn't there.
Yep, and people would still make stupid decisions and try to wish God out of existence.
I never heard of this idea of two types of sovereignty. The only way in which I relate to the idea of God's sovereignty is on a personal level as the conviction that the events in my life are given to me by God to teach me and help me to grow in my relationship to Him. Yet I find it impossible to extend this as a universal fact of God's sovereignty. I cannot think, for example, that the actions of evil people are God's gift to their victims. The first is my choice and determination to see God in all the events of my life, but the second is horrible. It is inconceivable that I should insist that others live according to my choices and see things the way I do. So it seems to be that God's sovereignty over events is supportable as a personal philosophy but not as a universal doctrine. It is an interesting paradox that I find operating in other issues as well.
I am afraid that I do not see the explanation at all. Freedom (power) and responsibility cannot be divided and this is what this division of sovereignty seems like to me. I cannot help but think that this sounds like a denial of responsibility by God for what He controls. The inability of our decisions to thwart God's will is not difficult to explain, since the influence and power of our choices is insignificant compared to the power and influence of God. In fact this is a frequent confusion about the nature of human freedom. We only have the freedom to choose. We do not have the freedom to determine the course of events. For some of us, the persistent concidence that events do seem to follow our choices, just lures us into a false sense of power and security. For others, events only cooperate with our choices in the rarest cooperation of coincidents.
I cannot see Arminianism as being at the opposite end of the spectrum from Calvinism but rather as a more moderate position. The more extreme emphasis on human free will is now represented by Open Theism which denies the sovereignty of both God's power and God's knowledge over the choices of men. As I understand it Armenianism still upholds that God had already chosen everyone who will be saved before the foundation of the world. And this is not a belief which I can support. So while you may see elements of Calvinist thought in my words, the simple fact, that I declare that God chooses not to know what we will choose, puts me farther on the spectrum towards Open Theism than Arminianism.
My view on eternal security may moderate between Calvinism and Arminianism, but I do not see that my view on the total depravity of man is any more Calvinist than Arminian and I agree with Arminianism on universal atonement and resistable grace. My view of eternal security exhibits the same paradox I saw in regards to the sovereignty of God over all events but in reverse. Eternal security seems supportable as a logical doctrine but not as a personal philosophy. If ones personal relationship to God is founded on the idea that salvation is "in the bag" then one is most definely in serious error. Fear of God (knowing that God alone commands our fate and that we CANNOT manipulate Him) and repentance must be the foundation of our personal relationship with God.
Whereas that seems to be a bit of a cop out to me (i.e. avoidance).
I understand faith as a commitment which is a consequence of choice. There for I can comprehend the idea that faith is a gift of God but only in the sense that it is the intervention of God which makes that choice free and possible. But the choice is still an excercise of free will and therefore the faith which derives from it is not wholly due to the action of God. I have no doubt that faith may indeed be supported but the action of the Holy Spirit but not against our free will. I do not see that faith is something which never wavers and therefore it makes no sense that it is entirely the responsibility of God. Nor do I see faith as something upon which salvation itself depends. Rather I think it is the fruits of salvation which depend upon faith. And to those fruits each of us must come in our own time according to our faith and cooperation with God.
As for your personal experience of realizing rather than choosing I can only say that not all choices need be conscious or active, they can be reflexive and passive too. Acceptance is also a choice. Just as many sins, are passive sins of omission as are active sins of commission.
AMEN!
Using "Amen" as the end of the forum is just cliché and trite. Nonetheless, all of your posts were pretty interesting. Good talk.
Amen is a traditional way of signaling agreement (especially between two Christians) and in this case was a response to the last comment of daytonturner. As a teacher I would never accept such a response as worth any credit in a forum based classroom (which I do teach by the way), however this is not a classroom and my post is not for credit, so I feel that my expression of appreciation for daytonturners comment was appropriate.
I could point out that while your expression of appreciation for our discussion was itself appreciated, it is not much much different than an AMEN either, and if it was "for credit" I would have asked the student questions like, what in particular did you find interesting? Where do you yourself stand in the spectrum between Calvinism, Arminianism, and open theism, if at all?
mitchellmckain,
I felt that the majority of your posts consisted of unsubstantial, unconvincing rambling, and honestly, I was getting bored with your comments and wished to move on to another topic. Putting "Amen" at the end of your post kind of put the icing on the cake of your wordy, solely self-appreciative essays. Instead of reading what someone says and scrutinizing every word and proving to them they're wrong, I would suggest you add to the converstion, not destroy the conversation. If you think about it, commenting on what other people say and telling them they're wrong and giving them your opinions makes a bland post; no one will want to read it except for yourself. Nonetheless, I know you will come back with a rebuttle and try to prove to me aimlessly why it is fine to ramble on and on and on about why I am wrong and why you are correct but think about it. Who is going to read it?
Hmmm... the inconsistency of your statements and the irony that you yourself do exactly what you accuse me of doing, is curious. But why are you waiting for me to change the topic? Let's hear your brilliant ideas on the the issue of the use of religion as an excuse not to make decisions for oneself.
I would also like to add that I become annoyed with the opposite type of response to my posts. I am extremely annoyed by people who pick out a single statement in my posts in order to ridicule it out context while my main argument and the whole point of my post is ignored. I consider this kind of practice to be only slightly better than namecalling.
As a Christian, I believe God watches over our daily lives but doesn't ineludibly make our decisions. As a father, he watches over us but still allows us to make our own decisions; stepping in only if we have not met or tapped our true destiny.
The main reason he doesn't interfere with our lives is to show us what being human is all about and to really see if we love or believe in him.
NDE are just allusions that people have due to the high dose of medicine they are on. It is pretty much the same thing as dreaming.
First of all, make up your mind. Secondly, I'm having a little trouble with your stance on free will.
I'm not sure where the idea came from that when you convert to a religion your choices are all made for you. God or no God, we only have to look so far as our own personal experience to see that we have free will. And frankly, if we didn't have free will there wouldn't be much you could do about it.
August 27th, 2006, 11:14 AM
How about tossing a coin and sticking by the decision. IF you are religious
then your God decided which way the coin was to land, IF you are not religious then it's the coin's fault! - Think of it as 'Heads I win, Tales you lose'. - I should add a caution here, use only when the pro's and con's are equal.
| « ZELOS ASKED REV ROSWELL TO PROVE GOD EXISTS...OK READ THIS | Before Jesus: Did hell/heaven exist ? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
