- May 30, 2020
- 9,760
- 4,407
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So the Bible is wrong about free will? Free isn't free?"Free" is an absolute adjective. If it's limited, it's not "free."
The bible doesn't say anything about "free will." The pagan concept of free will not scriptural.So the Bible is wrong about free will? Free isn't free?
Dude, you have just destroyed Christianity. Without free will, Christianity makes no sense whatsoever. Nothing makes any sense whatsoever. Making sense makes no sense.The bible doesn't say anything about "free will." The pagan concept of free will not scriptural.
"Free will" means a moral agent can choose any action without coercion, restriction, or consequences from any other moral agent or moral authority. If there is coercion, restriction, or consequences imposed by another moral agent or authority, then our actions are not freely willed by our own desires, they are acted with limiting consideration given to those factors.
Scripturally, we get a limited choice, and we get that choice only by God's grace. God never said our actions were "free."
Moral determinism is clear in scripture. It's so clear that pagan philosophers levied scriptural determinism as a charge against Christianity. To counter that charge, Augustine invented a very narrow, limited kind of "free will" that is really a peculiar Christian concept. The limited choice that Christians call "free will" is not what anyone else calls free will.
Ironically, while ancient pagan philosophers touted "free will," Christians are the only people talking today about humans having free will. Secular philosophers have come to the conclusion that to some greater or lesser degree, there is no free will and that the universe is to some greater or lesser degree deterministic.
Actually, Jesus himself said we can't serve two masters.Dude, you have just destroyed Christianity. Without free will, Christianity makes no sense whatsoever. Nothing makes any sense whatsoever. Making sense makes no sense.
The LORD is still very much active.I personally believe god took a step back from humanity a while back
Exactly. That's why we have to choose.Actually, Jesus himself said we can't serve two masters.
For what it's worth, I agree that in this world a choice exists as an option between what is false and what is true, and we start out ignorant and gain knowledge often through trial and error. But that choice/option is circumstantial to an event not attributable to the will and therefore the choice/decision is a matter of being predisposed according to how well we see, Matthew 6:22 .Exactly. That's why we have to choose.
"Free will" means a moral agent can choose any action without coercion, restriction, or consequences from any other moral agent or moral authority. If there is coercion, restriction, or consequences imposed by another moral agent or authority, then our actions are not freely willed by our own desires, they are acted with limiting consideration given to those factors.Dude, you have just destroyed Christianity. Without free will, Christianity makes no sense whatsoever. Nothing makes any sense whatsoever. Making sense makes no sense.
What we have in Christ is the choice of being enslaved to Him or being enslaved by sin. But having only a choice of who will be your master is not "free will."For what it's worth, I agree that in this world a choice exists as an option between what is false and what is true, and we start out ignorant and gain knowledge often through trial and error. But that choice/option is circumstantial to an event not attributable to the will and therefore the choice/decision is a matter of being predisposed according to how well we see, Matthew 6:22 .
When the term "free will" is describing a will that is undecided between two masters, then the term "free" is qualified as "uncommitted" to either one or the other and the terminology implies an equivocating will. Although, we may think ourselves "free" in that circumstance, I believe Jesus is saying that we are already slaves of sin in some degree and only the Spirit of Truth can set us "free". The prodigal son is a good example of a will that imagines the grass is greener somewhere else, and then comes to see that he had it good to begin with.
Romans 6:17,18
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
It's people's wording for scriptures in the word. When we come right down to it it's every ones interpretation of what they are reading. Free will has been someone's interpretation of the word. As far as i am concerned we have choices based on how they have interpreted what their reading. Of course they would hopefully be based on the word. I don't believe in assisted suicide because you are causing another to sin .The bible doesn't say anything about "free will." The pagan concept of free will not scriptural.
"Free will" means a moral agent can choose any action without coercion, restriction, or consequences from any other moral agent or moral authority. If there is coercion, restriction, or consequences imposed by another moral agent or authority, then our actions are not freely willed by our own desires, they are acted with limiting consideration given to those factors.
Scripturally, we get a limited choice, and we get that choice only by God's grace. God never said our actions were "free."
Moral determinism is clear in scripture. It's so clear that pagan philosophers levied scriptural determinism as a charge against Christianity. To counter that charge, Augustine invented a very narrow, limited kind of "free will" that is really a peculiar Christian concept. The limited choice that Christians call "free will" is not what anyone else calls free will.
Ironically, while ancient pagan philosophers touted "free will," Christians are the only people talking today about humans having free will. Secular philosophers have come to the conclusion that to some greater or lesser degree, there is no free will and that the universe is to some greater or lesser degree deterministic.
That would be my point. Where do we get the right to take ANY human life? Our own included.
No.I've retired after 40+ years as health care provider. I'll pose a scenario. A 65 year old man has rapidly progressive kidney failure. He's at the point where he needs hemodialysis. Which will add 5-10 years to his life, Without dialysis, he will likely die in 6-12 months. But he refuses to go on dialysis. He is mentally competent, and knows the disruption and arduousness that hemodialysis entails. He says he is ready for nature to take its course. Is refusing a life-saving (or life-extending) medical procedure equivalent to committing suicide?
Where do we get the right to take ANY human life? Our own included.
Because in one you kill yourself and in the other you let nature take it's course without going to crazy lengths.This is what you posted:
Why is refusing life-saving intervention not morally equivalent to taking one's own life?
Perhaps the context is relevant. Chevyontheriver's case is different from - say - a man standing on the roof of a tall building refusing to be persuaded not to jump.This is what you posted:
Why is refusing life-saving intervention not morally equivalent to taking one's own life?
"Free will" means a moral agent can choose any action without coercion, restriction, or consequences from any other moral agent or moral authority.
While I think your interpretation of the OP is correct, investigating the moral responsibilities of others in life and death decisions is morally interesting.As the issue was first put in the OP I took it to refer to actually performing the physical actions required to end the life of a person ...
Nah."Free will" means a moral agent can choose any actionwithoutin spite of coercion, restriction, or consequences ….
Perhaps the context is relevant. Chevyontheriver's case is different from - say - a man standing on the roof of a tall building refusing to be persuaded not to jump.
I think it is a different question from the one under discussion here. In Chevyontheriver's case what are the moral implications of going along with his decision? Would withholding the treatment be tantamount to assisting in his suicide? I don't think so.
As the issue was first put in the OP I took it to refer to actually performing the physical actions required to end the life of a person incapacitated by illness and unable to end their own life, the usual context for 'assisted suicide'. General questions about free will are peripheral to the immediate dilemma.
Yes, I see. I think it is a separate discussion. For me the right to commit suicide is a given, so it is not a discussion I would join.I was responding to Chevy’s apparent assertion that no one has the right to take a life, including one’s own. That immediately broadened the discussion. If true, it would mean refusing life-saving medical care is a form of suicide.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?