God wants people to freely choose Him - NOT! [Archive]

Tladatsi

April 1st 2006, 05:39 PM

shunyadragon

April 1st 2006, 08:02 PM

Where does it say in the Bible that He wants mankind to choose Him freely? The first covenent God established was with Noah (Gen 6:18 and Gen 9). He did not ask Noah to agree, God simply announced it and Noah simply obeyed. Likewise when God established a covenent with Abram (Gen 15 & 17) God never asks Abraham if he agrees to the covenent or the conditions. Gods just says "Here is how is going to be" and Abe does not say a thing. In Ex 6 God tells Moses to go to Israelites in bondage in Egypt and set them free because God "remembered my covenent" with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He does not ask Moses if he agrees to go to Egypt or if the Israelites agree with the convenent. Likewise in Ex 24 Moses simply announces the conditions of the covenent to the Israelites. As close as it gets is Ex 19. In Lev 26 God says obey me and I will reward you and disobey me and you will be punished. Likewise in Deu 4 and 5 God commands Moses and Moses commands the Israelites. Never does He say "freely choose me". He simply says "obey me or face the consequences".

There is no mention of eternal bliss in heaven or damnation in hell. Just success or punishment on earth.

So there is no question of free will on mankind's part. If mankind "chooses" God, it does so under the threat of divine retribution, that is to say, under duress. The ancients believed that His threat was in the present and here. Modern Christians generally believe that the threat is in the future and elsewhere (after death in hell or the after the apacolypse). It might well be a choice but it is not freely made choice, no free will is involved.

Biblically I consider the first covenent with humanity to be with Adam, and God created Adam with the power of free will, which would reflect the intnt of God to give humanity a choice.

Tladatsi

April 2nd 2006, 12:23 AM

Biblically I consider the first covenent with humanity to be with Adam, and God created Adam with the power of free will, which would reflect the intnt of God to give humanity a choice.

Hello,

God did not want Adam to have free will. God gave Adam many types of knowledge but intentionally did not give Adam the knowledge of good and evil. Without the knowledge of the difference between good and evil, Adam could not possibly exercise free will in matters of ethics. Adam achieved free will by disobeying God and eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You can see an entire thread on this debate.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=72266

shunyadragon

April 2nd 2006, 10:48 AM

Hello,

God did not want Adam to have free will. God gave Adam many types of knowledge but intentionally did not give Adam the knowledge of good and evil. Without the knowledge of the difference between good and evil, Adam could not possibly exercise free will in matters of ethics. Adam achieved free will by disobeying God and eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You can see an entire thread on this debate.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=72266

There are some contradictions here.

First, the first covenant between God and humanity was with Adam, right?

Second, indeed God did not want Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but God did indeed create Adam with the gift of free will, because Adam had the choice to eat from the tree or not.

Tladatsi

April 2nd 2006, 12:11 PM

There are some contradictions here.

First, the first covenant between God and humanity was with Adam, right?

Second, indeed God did not want Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but God did indeed create Adam with the gift of free will, because Adam had the choice to eat from the tree or not.

First, I don't see any language in Gen 2 or 3 that talks about any convenent.

Second, God did not ask Adam for agreement on anything. God made an order "Don't eat the fruit or you will die". That does not sound like "I want you to freely choose to obey my wishes".

Third, God punished Adam for disobeying the standing fruit order. There is no free will under threat or coersion.

Fourth, if God wanted Adam to use his free will, why did God deny Adam knowledge of good and evil. That knowledge is the owners manual for free will. Without it, free will is meaningless.

mentored1

April 4th 2006, 07:59 PM

Hey Shunya, well met

There are some contradictions here.

First, the first covenant between God and humanity was with Adam, right?

Second, indeed God did not want Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but God did indeed create Adam with the gift of free will, because Adam had the choice to eat from the tree or not.

I see what you're getting at and perhaps it isn't a matter of free or not but something more nebulous...

What kind of a choice is it if the consequences of the choice are not known? If Adam didn't understand what was good and what was evil (he hadn't acted to eat the fruit yet) then how did Adam know his action would be evil?

There was no understanding of consequence so if there was a choice it was a very limited one - without ethical or moral considerations. I wonder if Adam, without such knowledge, even understood what God and, subsequently, the serpent were talking about!

Take care

shunyadragon

April 5th 2006, 12:47 AM

First, I don't see any language in Gen 2 or 3 that talks about any convenent.

Second, God did not ask Adam for agreement on anything. God made an order "Don't eat the fruit or you will die". That does not sound like "I want you to freely choose to obey my wishes".

Third, God punished Adam for disobeying the standing fruit order. There is no free will under threat or coersion.

Fourth, if God wanted Adam to use his free will, why did God deny Adam knowledge of good and evil. That knowledge is the owners manual for free will. Without it, free will is meaningless.

More contradictions, you said before;

God did not want Adam to have free will.

but, God created Adam with free will. When god gives a command, and the alternative as to what the consequences are if the command is disobeyed, then it is absolutly clear God acknowledges the free will in humans which he creatd in the first place. Genesis 2 and 3 make it very clear God did not want Adam to have the knowledge of good and evil, bur Adam was created with free will.

The definition of covenant is an agreement. God's first agreement with humanity is clearly with Adam, and that agreement is that Adam must obey goods commands.

The covenant agreement begins in Genesis 1:27-31, and continues in Genesis 2:1-25 with the conditions of the agreement determining what God gives humanity and in turn what humanity must do in return, obey God's commands.

Adam violates the covenant in Genesis 3, and God punishes humanity for the violation of the covenant by Adam.

Tladatsi

April 5th 2006, 01:35 AM

but, God created Adam with free will. When god gives a command, and the alternative as to what the consequences are if the command is disobeyed, then it is absolutly clear God acknowledges the free will in humans which he creatd in the first place. Genesis 2 and 3 make it very clear God did not want Adam to have the knowledge of good and evil, bur Adam was created with free will.

The definition of covenant is an agreement. God's first agreement with humanity is clearly with Adam, and that agreement is that Adam must obey goods commands.

The covenant agreement begins in Genesis 1:27-31, and continues in Genesis 2:1-25 with the conditions of the agreement determining what God gives humanity and in turn what humanity must do in return, obey God's commands.

Adam violates the covenant in Genesis 3, and God punishes humanity for the violation of the covenant by Adam.

The point of the posting is that God never says "Please choose to obey me" or "Use your free will to make choices that I like". He says "Do as I say or I will punish you".

While Adam had the ability to choose but that is not the same as free will. Free will is the abiliy to make a choice free of outside influence or coersion. There were no choices offered by God. God punishes people severly who make choices He does not like.

Nowhere in the Tanakh are there any "agreements" between any human (Adam, Abraham, Isaac, or Moses) and God. God issues commands, backed up by threats which are routinely enforced. No human ever says "Oh, I agree with your propoal". It is all onesided. God says "Jump" and mankind says "How high".

shunyadragon

April 5th 2006, 03:44 AM

The point of the posting is that God never says "Please choose to obey me" or "Use your free will to make choices that I like". He says "Do as I say or I will punish you".

While Adam had the ability to choose but that is not the same as free will. Free will is the abiliy to make a choice free of outside influence or coersion. There were no choices offered by God. God punishes people severly who make choices He does not like.

Nowhere in the Tanakh are there any "agreements" between any human (Adam, Abraham, Isaac, or Moses) and God. God issues commands, backed up by threats which are routinely enforced. No human ever says "Oh, I agree with your propoal". It is all onesided. God says "Jump" and mankind says "How high".

Free will is basically the ability to make a choice, whether there is a punishment or not.

All covenants with God are one sided. Just the same, Biblically God's first covenant was with Adam.

Tladatsi

April 5th 2006, 09:52 PM

Free will is basically the ability to make a choice, whether there is a punishment or not.

All covenants with God are one sided. Just the same, Biblically God's first covenant was with Adam.

I hate to use the old dictionary routine but according to the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition,

free will n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Free will is more than just ability to choose, it is the ability to choose without external influence, to choose "freely". The threat of death or eternal damnation hardly constitutes a an offer of a choice freely made.

Likewise, how is a one-sided convenent an expression of "free will"? If one side has no say, there is no free will expressed in the convenent. It is like that Christian Science Monitor reporter who was kidnapped, her translator murdered, and at the point of several guns, given the "choice" to record what she was told to say or die. Did Jill Carroll "choose" to make those recordings, you bet she did (as would anyone else in the same situation). Were those recordings an expression her free will, aboslutely not.

If God had wanted us to use free will, He would not punish us for making choices He does not approve of.

shunyadragon

April 6th 2006, 12:04 AM

I hate to use the old dictionary routine but according to the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition,

free will n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Free will is more than just ability to choose, it is the ability to choose without external influence, to choose "freely". The threat of death or eternal damnation hardly constitutes a an offer of a choice freely made.

Likewise, how is a one-sided convenent an expression of "free will"? If one side has no say, there is no free will expressed in the convenent. It is like that Christian Science Monitor reporter who was kidnapped, her translator murdered, and at the point of several guns, given the "choice" to record what she was told to say or die. Did Jill Carroll "choose" to make those recordings, you bet she did (as would anyone else in the same situation). Were those recordings an expression her free will, aboslutely not.

If God had wanted us to use free will, He would not punish us for making choices He does not approve of.

Please do not hate, it is not the best emotional choice. Despite that the dictionary is always a good reference, and based on the definition my view still holds. The threat of consequences does not constrain the freedom of Adam to chose to eat or not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. It is claear in the Bible that God did not want Adam to have knowledge of 'good and evil'. He did indeed give Adam the free will to make the choice.

Constrain means to stop or prevent something from taking place, and God made no move to stop or constrain Adam from making the choice.

Tladatsi

April 8th 2006, 09:27 PM

Please do not hate, it is not the best emotional choice. Despite that the dictionary is always a good reference, and based on the definition my view still holds. The threat of consequences does not constrain the freedom of Adam to chose to eat or not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. It is claear in the Bible that God did not want Adam to have knowledge of 'good and evil'. He did indeed give Adam the free will to make the choice.

Constrain means to stop or prevent something from taking place, and God made no move to stop or constrain Adam from making the choice.

Shunyadragon,

Yes, hate is not the path forward.:smile:

The point of contention is not that Adam could or did make a choice, he did. However it was not a freely made choice, which is what free will is about.

Let me present the issue from a different angle. Adam obeyed God's command and did not eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TOKOGAE) UNTIL the talking snake convinced him, or rather Eve, that God threat was hollow, that they would not die if they ate the fruit. What is more said the snake, you would gain knowledge of good and evil, which would make them like God (which they thought would be pretty cool). They only made the choice to eat the fruit when they believed that God's threat was gone AND that there were previously unknow benefits.

While they believed that God's threat was real, that they would die, the chose to not eat the fruit of TOKOGAE. They did not make the choice they would otherwise have made, they were in fact constrained by the threat. Once they believed that threat was false, they made a free uncontrained choice and ate the fruit of TOKOGAE.

With the threat being perceived as being real, they made one (unfree) choice, with the threat being perceived as being false, they made a different (free) choice. QED.

shunyadragon

April 8th 2006, 09:51 PM

Shunyadragon,

Yes, hate is not the path forward.:smile:

The point of contention is not that Adam could or did make a choice, he did. However it was not a freely made choice, which is what free will is about.

Being able to make a choice is the freedom to make a choice, and es this is what free will is all about. Adam freely made the choice he was not coersed or forced to make the choice by Eve or the snake.

Let me present the issue from a different angle. Adam obeyed God's command and did not eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TOKOGAE) UNTIL the talking snake convinced him, or rather Eve, that God threat was hollow, that they would not die if they ate the fruit. What is more said the snake, you would gain knowledge of good and evil, which would make them like God (which they thought would be pretty cool). They only made the choice to eat the fruit when they believed that God's threat was gone AND that there were previously unknown benefits.

This still represents a freely made choice which they chose to do.

While they believed that God's threat was real, that they would die, the chose to not eat the fruit of TOKOGAE. They did not make the choice they would otherwise have made, they were in fact constrained by the threat. Once they believed that threat was false, they made a free uncontrained choice and ate the fruit of TOKOGAE.

With the threat being perceived as being real, they made one (unfree) choice, with the threat being perceived as being false, they made a different (free) choice. QED.[/QUOTE]

Tladatsi

April 9th 2006, 01:46 AM

Adam freely made the choice he was not coersed or forced to make the choice by Eve or the snake.

OK, let us for the moment conceed that Adam has free will.

Consider two choices, one preferred and the other not. All other things being equal, a free choice will be one where the agent chooses the preferred choice. That is free will.

The text (Gen 3:6) clearly states that the fruit was "desirable" as a fruit. Further, as the snake points out, that by eating the fruit, a mere human would become god-like in wisdom and knowledge. Both of these features make eating the fruit of the TOKOGAE a preferred choice over not eating it.

God clearly believes this as well. That is why He issued His command. If the fruit were ugly and sour and otherwise undesirable, there would be no need to issue any such command. He did not need to issue any commands not to eat the cactii after all.

So why does Adam take the less preferred choice? Fear of death quite naturally. He does not exercise his power of making the choice he really wants to make because of external duress. He only opts for the preferred choice when the fear of death is dispelled, i.e. when the duress is removed.

The question is not does Adam have free will or not. If Adam does have free will, it is clear that God does not want him to use it. That is the point of my posting. God does not want Adam or mankind to make choices He does not approve of. He does not want us to use free will.

shunyadragon

April 9th 2006, 03:29 AM

OK, let us for the moment conceed that Adam has free will.

Consider two choices, one preferred and the other not. All other things being equal, a free choice will be one where the agent chooses the preferred choice. That is free will.

The text (Gen 3:6) clearly states that the fruit was "desirable" as a fruit. Further, as the snake points out, that by eating the fruit, a mere human would become god-like in wisdom and knowledge. Both of these features make eating the fruit of the TOKOGAE a preferred choice over not eating it.

God clearly believes this as well. That is why He issued His command. If the fruit were ugly and sour and otherwise undesirable, there would be no need to issue any such command. He did not need to issue any commands not to eat the cactii after all.

So why does Adam take the less preferred choice? Fear of death quite naturally. He does not exercise his power of making the choice he really wants to make because of external duress. He only opts for the preferred choice when the fear of death is dispelled, i.e. when the duress is removed.

The question is not does Adam have free will or not. If Adam does have free will, it is clear that God does not want him to use it. That is the point of my posting. God does not want Adam or mankind to make choices He does not approve of. He does not want us to use free will.

Were getting a little closer here, Adam does have free-will, God created Adam to have free-will, and as for the fruit, he had a choice; follow God's command not to eat, or follow the tempting offer made by the serpent. The tempting offer does not represent 'duress removed' any more than the choice today to disobey God, and make an obvious immoral decision would. God desires Adam to make the right choice and follow God's commands. This is different from not wanting Adam to have free will.

themuzicman

April 9th 2006, 09:47 AM

Where does it say in the Bible that He wants mankind to choose Him freely? The first covenent God established was with Noah (Gen 6:18 and Gen 9). He did not ask Noah to agree, God simply announced it and Noah simply obeyed. Likewise when God established a covenent with Abram (Gen 15 & 17) God never asks Abraham if he agrees to the covenent or the conditions. Gods just says "Here is how is going to be" and Abe does not say a thing. In Ex 6 God tells Moses to go to Israelites in bondage in Egypt and set them free because God "remembered my covenent" with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He does not ask Moses if he agrees to go to Egypt or if the Israelites agree with the convenent. Likewise in Ex 24 Moses simply announces the conditions of the covenent to the Israelites. As close as it gets is Ex 19. In Lev 26 God says obey me and I will reward you and disobey me and you will be punished. Likewise in Deu 4 and 5 God commands Moses and Moses commands the Israelites. Never does He say "freely choose me". He simply says "obey me or face the consequences".

There is no mention of eternal bliss in heaven or damnation in hell. Just success or punishment on earth.

So there is no question of free will on mankind's part. If mankind "chooses" God, it does so under the threat of divine retribution, that is to say, under duress. The ancients believed that His threat was in the present and here. Modern Christians generally believe that the threat is in the future and elsewhere (after death in hell or the after the apacolypse). It might well be a choice but it is not freely made choice, no free will is involved.
The Noaic covenant has nothing to do with salvation.

The Adamic covenant is simply a promise to all of mankind for someone to propitiate for sin.

The Abrahamic covenant was intrinsically conditional, since Abraham had to circumsize all males to abide by the terms of the covenant.

The Mosaic covenant was clearly conditional, since God laid out the law, and told them that if they followed the law, they'd be blessed, but if they didn't follow the law, they'd be cursed, and TOLD THEM to CHOOSE LIFE.

The New Covenant, likewise, involves God's drawing men to Himself (John 6:44), and man choice to hear and learn God's teaching (John 6:45) to come to Christ, and must choose to believe to receive eternal life (John 6:27-29).

SO, what we see are a variety of KINDS of covenants, of which the New Covenant is quite based upon man's choice to believe.

Michael

Tladatsi

April 9th 2006, 03:37 PM

Were getting a little closer here, Adam does have free-will, God created Adam to have free-will, and as for the fruit, he had a choice; follow God's command not to eat, or follow the tempting offer made by the serpent. The tempting offer does not represent 'duress removed' any more than the choice today to disobey God, and make an obvious immoral decision would. God desires Adam to make the right choice and follow God's commands. This is different from not wanting Adam to have free will.

You are missing the key point. God did not want Adam to use his free will. You can't have it both ways. Why give Adam free will and then punish him for using it? God issues commandments to mankinds. God never asks..do you agree? God never says "please use your free will to choose the to follow these commandments." God says "If you use your free will in ways I do not approve of, I will punish you". Translated: Don't use your free will, do things as I want them done.

Tladatsi

April 9th 2006, 03:47 PM

The Noaic covenant has nothing to do with salvation.

The Adamic covenant is simply a promise to all of mankind for someone to propitiate for sin.

The Abrahamic covenant was intrinsically conditional, since Abraham had to circumsize all males to abide by the terms of the covenant.

The Mosaic covenant was clearly conditional, since God laid out the law, and told them that if they followed the law, they'd be blessed, but if they didn't follow the law, they'd be cursed, and TOLD THEM to CHOOSE LIFE.

The New Covenant, likewise, involves God's drawing men to Himself (John 6:44), and man choice to hear and learn God's teaching (John 6:45) to come to Christ, and must choose to believe to receive eternal life (John 6:27-29).

SO, what we see are a variety of KINDS of covenants, of which the New Covenant is quite based upon man's choice to believe.

Michael

OK I you are right. There are all kinds of covenants. Where in any of them does God say "Please freely choose to follow my commandents". John 6 is saying "Do things the way I want them done, and I will reward you (with eternal life). Don't and I will punish you by letting you die."

God rewards people who do not use their free will, people who do what God wants them to do. God punishes people who do use their free will and do not do what God wants them to do. If God said "I will give you eternal life no matter what you do but I would like you to do what I want you to do" - that is what God would say if he wanted mankind to use free will.

themuzicman

April 9th 2006, 07:53 PM

OK I you are right. There are all kinds of covenants. Where in any of them does God say "Please freely choose to follow my commandents".

19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

FYI, "freely choose" is an oxymoron. If you really have a choice, it's free.

John 6 is saying "Do things the way I want them done, and I will reward you (with eternal life). Don't and I will punish you by letting you die."

Really? Didn't see that, there. I see Jesus saying that the one who hears and learns the teaching of God will receive eternal life. Sounds like a choice to me.

God rewards people who do not use their free will, people who do what God wants them to do.

So, if I choose to do what God desires for me to do, I don't use my free will? That"s silly.

God punishes people who do use their free will and do not do what God wants them to do. If God said "I will give you eternal life no matter what you do but I would like you to do what I want you to do" - that is what God would say if he wanted mankind to use free will.

Really? Never say that in the bible before.

Michael

shunyadragon

April 9th 2006, 09:12 PM

OK I you are right. There are all kinds of covenants. Where in any of them does God say "Please freely choose to follow my commandents". John 6 is saying "Do things the way I want them done, and I will reward you (with eternal life). Don't and I will punish you by letting you die."

God rewards people who do not use their free will, people who do what God wants them to do. God punishes people who do use their free will and do not do what God wants them to do. If God said "I will give you eternal life no matter what you do but I would like you to do what I want you to do" - that is what God would say if he wanted mankind to use free will.

You seem to equate free will as making the wrong choice, but the reality of free will and free agency is the gift to choose which God gave Adam. This gave Adam the ability to obey God or not. It is clear that in all covenants with God, humans have the free will ability to follow or not follow God's commands.

Tladatsi

April 9th 2006, 11:51 PM

19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them."

FYI, "freely choose" is an oxymoron. If you really have a choice, it's free.

The question is not whether the choice is free, but does God want you to make a free choice. Clearly not.

Really? Didn't see that, there. I see Jesus saying that the one who hears and learns the teaching of God will receive eternal life. Sounds like a choice to me.

Yes, a choice, one of which is punished and the other rewarded. Why does God reward one choice and not another? To favor one choice over the other, the discourage one. In other words, to encourage people not use their free will but to choose Gods' choice.

So, if I choose to do what God desires for me to do, I don't use my free will? That"s silly.

Why did God issue commandments and back them up with rewards and punishments? Because people did not follow them otherwise.

Really? Never say that in the bible before.

Sure, lots of places. You quoted one of them. Deu 30:19 do as I say and I will reward, otherwise face severe punishment (in paraphrase of course).

Tladatsi

April 9th 2006, 11:54 PM

You seem to equate free will as making the wrong choice, but the reality of free will and free agency is the gift to choose which God gave Adam. This gave Adam the ability to obey God or not. It is clear that in all covenants with God, humans have the free will ability to follow or not follow God's commands.

Yes that is exactly correct. If I have free will I have the right to make the "wrong" choice. I get to decide what is right and what is wrong for me. That is it in a nut shell. Yes.

shunyadragon

April 10th 2006, 04:52 AM

Yes that is exactly correct. If I have free will I have the right to make the "wrong" choice. I get to decide what is right and what is wrong for me. That is it in a nut shell. Yes.

Unfortunately that is not how free will is defined. Free will is the ability to make choices, and may or may not refer to a choice between right and wrong. Adam was given free will by God, as with all humans. God wanted Adam to make the right choice, which has been true for the entire history of humanity.

themuzicman

April 10th 2006, 07:21 AM

The question is not whether the choice is free, but does God want you to make a free choice. Clearly not.

Not? i just showed you two.

Yes, a choice, one of which is punished and the other rewarded. Why does God reward one choice and not another? To favor one choice over the other, the discourage one. In other words, to encourage people not use their free will but to choose Gods' choice.

:lmbo: So, the fact that God wants men to do what's right and best for all of mankind means that we aren't making a free choice? You're kidding, right?

Why did God issue commandments and back them up with rewards and punishments? Because people did not follow them otherwise.

But people still had and have the option to not follow them. Either choice, to follow or not follow, is still free.

Or would you prefer that God leave men to their own devices?

Sure, lots of places. You quoted one of them. Deu 30:19 do as I say and I will reward, otherwise face severe punishment (in paraphrase of course).

Guess what? most of the choices you make in life are of this kind.

Let me guess.... You're a political anarchist?

Or does this whole "a choice is only free if you rebel agains the rules" thing only apply to God?

:lmbo:

Michael

Tladatsi

April 10th 2006, 10:18 PM

Unfortunately that is not how free will is defined. Free will is the ability to make choices, and may or may not refer to a choice between right and wrong. Adam was given free will by God, as with all humans. God wanted Adam to make the right choice, which has been true for the entire history of humanity.

What else can it mean? How can I have free will if I cannot make whatever choice I want? Yes, God wanted makind to make the "right" (i.e. His) choices, which is exactly my point. God does not want us to use our free will, he wants to do exactly what He wants us to do. That is why He punishes people who do not do as He wants them to do, to discourage them from using their free will, their ability to choose.

Tladatsi

April 10th 2006, 10:58 PM

So, the fact that God wants men to do what's right and best for all of mankind means that we aren't making a free choice? You're kidding, right?

No you misunderstand what I say. Mankind has free will. Free will is about doing what you want to do, not what someone else wants you to do. God does not want mankind to use free will if it goes against His commandments. God wants mankind to use free will only if our preferences agree with His commandments.

But people still had and have the option to not follow them. Either choice, to follow or not follow, is still free.

Yes, that is exactly my point. People are punished for using free will when they do things He does not approve of. God only punishes people for the purpose of discouraging people from making those free choices He disapproves of. Therefore, God does not want us to "freely choose" His commandments. He wants mankind to follow them without deviation, without option, and without question.

Or would you prefer that God leave men to their own devices?

My preferences are not the issue. The point of this posting is not that it is either good or bad that God demands complete obedience to His commandments. The point is that God does demand complete obedience and is not interested in whether people use free will to do it or not. He will punish those who use free will to go against His commandments.

Guess what? most of the choices you make in life are of this kind.

Yes indeed.

Let me guess.... You're a political anarchist?

Not at all. I have met arachists and they are all posers. They are a bunch posturing pretenders.

Or does this whole "a choice is only free if you rebel agains the rules" thing only apply to God?

Not at all. I do not say that only free choices are against the rules. I do say that only those free choices that are made against the rules are punished by God. They are punished to discourage the use of free will that go against the rules.

God says "Choose action I do not approve and suffer my wrath". If God wanted mankind to use free will, He would not punish people for using free will. God is opposed to people using free will that does meet with His approval.

Here is an example of some encouraging the use of free will. I tell my son he can either eat an apple or an orange. He chooses an orange and eats it. My son much prefers oranges over apples. I do not punish him for his choice. He uses his free will and enjoys it.

Now the opposite. I tell my son I do not want him to eat any oranges, only apples. I tell him that I will smack him upside his head if he even touches an orange, much less eats one. Now, he has free will and he may choose to defy me (because he prefers organges) or he may choose to eat the apple (which he does not particularly like). However my attitude is that of God's - I don't want my son to excerise his free will and choose the fruit he prefers, I want him to obey me and choose the fruit I prefer him to eat.

Now obviously if a particular individual prefers to follow every commandant that is just fine with God. However, there are a lot of things forbiden in the Pentateuch that people really prefer, say eating shirmp (cooked in garlic, chilli, and butter) over not eating shrimp. No matter how marvalous shrimp might taste (even with beer batter with shreaded coconut), God does not want us to choose our personal prefernces but to choose His preferneces and not eat the shrimp (however succulant).

In the Pentateuch, there is no ban on eating chicken (if it is drained of blood and the sinews plucked) or beef (same plus it cannot be mixed with milk products, so no cheeseburgers). God allows us to use our free will in selecting chicken or beef. God does not allow us to use our free will in selecting shrimp or pork to eat.

I am not saying God is wrong for demanding we choose His preferences over our own, or even that it is good that He does. I do not say mankind does not have free will. I merely say God does not ask us to follow His preferences if we choose or it is our preference, demands that we choose what He commands under threat of punishment. He only wants us to use free will IF it goes His way and He wants us not to use free will IF it goes against His way.

shunyadragon

April 15th 2006, 02:11 AM

What else can it mean? How can I have free will if I cannot make whatever choice I want? Yes, God wanted makind to make the "right" (i.e. His) choices, which is exactly my point. God does not want us to use our free will, he wants to do exactly what He wants us to do. That is why He punishes people who do not do as He wants them to do, to discourage them from using their free will, their ability to choose.

Yes, it means God created Adam and Eve with free will, and they were able to make whatever choice thay wanted. God nor the sepent coersed or forced them them to eat the fruit. They choose to eat of their own free will. Eating the fruit gave them the knowledge of good and evil and not free will, they already had that. If God did not want them to have free will he would not have created them with free will.

As always God wanted them to use their free will to make the right choice.

mickiel

April 15th 2006, 04:19 AM

Greetings,

I don't see a choice given Adam, he had no choice in my view. God put both the knowledge of Good and Evil in the same tree, no matter which fruit Adam took, he would still be confused. I believe God wanted him, and all of humanity, to digest both Good and Evil, to experience both. satan didnot just walk into the garden of Eden of his own power. Oh you think he just got access all on his own? God gave satan permission to enter, and that is the only way anyother life form could enter Eden, through Gods own will. Adam and Eve were " Set Up" by God to do what they did. God could have planted an Evil tree, then Planted a seperate Good tree of understanding, he didnot, he put them both in the same tree, then he let satan interigate the couple, without interfering with that event.

Nothing happened in that Garden that God didnot want to occur.

Peace, Mickiel.

shunyadragon

April 15th 2006, 06:11 AM

mickiel

April 15th 2006, 12:54 PM

You're correct from the point of view that Adam and Eve were set up, and as fallible human beings they were ultimately would always be faced with the tree and serpent regardless, but nontheless they did have the choice to eat the fruit or not. The whole scenario is absurd anyway for a true story, and simply reflects a limited immature worldview of a primative people.

Greetings,

At whatever level you see a choice in what happened to the couple, at that same level I see their humam ability as being meaningless to change their destiny. satan easily seduced them, like candy in his hand, their ability to choose took absolutely no part in this confrontation they were destined to loose by any measure of fairness, and God is the greatest measure of Fairness and justice. God didnot interfere, that reveals to me he WANTED satan to win, there is no way in any amount of reason , that he would allow satan to CHANGE the human couples destiny.

I speak of fairness, because if any of you reading this, if you have two children, both under one years old, and you put them in your living room after giving them instructions, and YOU left them there alone. Then satan entered into your living room, and began a deception into the childrens minds. What choice do you think your children have at such an event, in the hands of such a great deceptive being as satan? Although the Eden couple were full grown adults, they were as children in satans hand. This was not a matter of choice, it was a matter of God being the Author and Finisher of all events that occur.

Its just that for some nieve reasonant, people think he was not the Author of the deception in Eden.

Peace, Mickiel.

mickiel

April 18th 2006, 02:38 AM

Greetings,

At whatever level you see a choice in what happened to the couple, at that same level I see their humam ability as being meaningless to change their destiny. satan easily seduced them, like candy in his hand, their ability to choose took absolutely no part in this confrontation they were destined to loose by any measure of fairness, and God is the greatest measure of Fairness and justice. God didnot interfere, that reveals to me he WANTED satan to win, there is no way in any amount of reason , that he would allow satan to CHANGE the human couples destiny.

I speak of fairness, because if any of you reading this, if you have two children, both under one years old, and you put them in your living room after giving them instructions, and YOU left them there alone. Then satan entered into your living room, and began a deception into the childrens minds. What choice do you think your children have at such an event, in the hands of such a great deceptive being as satan? Although the Eden couple were full grown adults, they were as children in satans hand. This was not a matter of choice, it was a matter of God being the Author and Finisher of all events that occur.

Its just that for some nieve reasonant, people think he was not the Author of the deception in Eden.

Peace, Mickiel.

It just goes to show you, the mind of christians think they hold the truth, they hold what the world reveals, we are in a trap of confusion. satan was allowed to place a grip on us in Eden, that grip has not been loosed. All christian opinon, as well as any other view, is gripped on satans influence. we fool ourselves if we think any different.

Welcome to the influence of satan. When Christ changes this, we will all know.

Peace, Mickiel.

shunyadragon

April 18th 2006, 05:17 AM

It just goes to show you, the mind of christians think they hold the truth, they hold what the world reveals, we are in a trap of confusion. satan was allowed to place a grip on us in Eden, that grip has not been loosed. All christian opinon, as well as any other view, is gripped on satans influence. we fool ourselves if we think any different.

Welcome to the influence of satan. When Christ changes this, we will all know.

Peace, Mickiel.

I agree that in this scenario it is of course, God's will that determines all in this case, but I do not believe the story is a literal true story. It is an ancient legend that reflects and ancient worldview of God. It can only at best be interpreted symbolically as the first humans to know God and a story of lost innocence of their animal nature and become spiritual beings with the knowledge that their will is capable of obeying an disobeying God.

It would an idealic naive illusion to believe that there was a time when humans were perfect immortal innocents in an idealic Eden.