Free will, and original sin --a discussion continued

[JAL]

Here's where I get off.

You're actually leaving? You're not doing God any favors. For 2,000 years the church has preached basically one dogma. Suppose you were a judge who only listened to one side of the story - either the defense of the prosecution. How likely would you be objective?

 

[BarnyFyfe]

You're actually leaving? You're not doing God any favors. For 2,000 years the church has preached basically one dogma. Suppose you were a judge who only listened to one side of the story - either the defense of the prosecution. How likely would you be objective?

I'm still here cyber-virtually. But I'm not going over that cliff with you. You can count on that.

For 2000 years the church has been waiting for you to set them straight about the secret things which belong to God? I don't know why, but I'm listening.

 

[BarnyFyfe]

By the way, we're getting way off-topic.

 

[JAL]

Where did the "existing matter" come from?

Let's start with something coherent. What does it mean to be conscious? Two basic attributes:
(1) Duration. It's ongoing.
(2) "Loudness" - that's the nature of experience.
Meaning it is an ongoing stream of experiences more or less distinct (loud and clear). When those sensations subside, therefore, it is called UNCONSCIOUSNESS. The duration (#1 above) has ended. By definition, then, consciousness is temporal.

What does this imply? A first moment, because an inifinite regress into the past is logically incoherent. In fact, if an infinite amount of time had to transpire to reach today, today would still have not been reached.

Where did the "existing matter" come from?

That's like asking, Where did God come from? My claim is that reality, at the outset, was not properly called God, but it rather was a finite amount of matter which I refer to as the Totality (the totality of matter).

The first moment in time refers to the first motion/thought to occur in that Totality. This is like a fetus awakening in a womb. Gradually a piece of matter awakened to full consciousness - and that piece of matter is the person whom we now know as Yahweh. Later He fashionsed the universe, the angels, our bodies, and our souls, out of the leftover matter.

When I speak of the original matter, don't think in terms of inert matter, protons, neutrons, electrons - that's a later fabricated system on His part. Just think in terms of tangible, self-propelling matter. Propelled by what? Free will.

Free will implies self-propelling matter. For example suppose you punch me in the face. What moved your fist? Ordinary cause-effect? If so, I can't be angry with you. But if free will propelled that fist, now I have cause to be angry.

There is nothing magical ("supernatural") about God's power. His power is the same kind as yours - free will. He's just a lot bigger than we are.

Over billions of years effort (a minimum of 13 billion years as far as we know) He laboriously acquired enough knowledge to become the quintessential ruler of the Totality - the ultimate protector and peace-keeper. He became holy.

Incarnation? Cinch. Think of God as a large brain. He then extricates one cell of matter from it. Will that cell remain powerful? No. Will it retain all its former knowledge? No. It becomes weak and ignorant. And He could have further reduced it's knowledge by scrambling that matter (like scrambling someone's brains). Then He placed that material soul in Mary's womb, binding it to a zygote.

 

[JAL]

I'm still here cyber-virtually. But I'm not going over that cliff with you. You can count on that.

For 2000 years the church has been waiting for you to set them straight about the secret things which belong to God? I don't know why, but I'm listening.

There's an article in Catholic Encyclopedia admitting that the early church fathers put the Greek philosophers on a par with Scripture. This persisted for about 1600 years per the article (as I recall). That's where the DDS doctrine came from. There is an online book that says that DDS has been in the church for at least 1800 years.

Do you believe that the Reformation made some valuable corrections? That 1500 years of thinking was in some respects - wrong?
Why then couldn't the Reformists have ALSO left some stones unturned?

 

[JAL]

How "logically consistent" are the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ?

Summary of the Trinity. Which cell in your brain is the real you? You regard yourself as one person but are actually a multiplicity. Each part of your brain has free will. Now let's suppose you divided all your responsibilities in life into three groups. Having done this, you might want to distinguish 3 physical regions in your brain where each region focuses mostly on one responsibility-group. In a sense, then, your overall multiplicity can now be understood as 3 main persons. Currently you don't have that degree of self-control, but it's conceptually possible.

The Father is a man-shaped material figure seated on a throne.
The Son is a man-shaped material figure seated at His right hand.
The Holy Breath/Wind, as Third Person, proceeds from the nostrils and mouth of the Son toward the earth, for example as Smoke, Wind, and Fire (see Ex 15:8,10; Psalm 18:8, 15; 33:6; Isaiah 55:11;John 20:22; Acts 2:1-4; 2Th 2:8).

 

[JAL]

In case you didn't know. The church fatther Tertullian, writing in 200 AD, was a staunch materialist like me. He wanted the church to run with Scripture instead of Greek philosophy. He lost that battle - and the rest is history.

 

[JAL]

One upshot of all this is that the word "spirit" is a poor translation of ruach/pneuma. Basically you should replace that word with wind/breath everywhere it appears in English translations. See this post for a little more clarification.

 

[JAL]

By the way, we're getting way off-topic.

But I think you see my frustration, right? Every time I accuse Mark of double-standards and inconsistencies between man and God, he basically replies, "I can assume any distinction I like between man and God because we all know that God and man are nothing alike." Well, in my opinion, man and God are exactly alike from a metaphysical point of view. In fact we are literally shaped in the physical image of the Father seated on the throne, as I tried to demonstrate.

I didn't intend to get this far off topic, but frustration gravitated me here.

 

[BarnyFyfe]

Let's start with something coherent. What does it mean to be conscious? Two basic attributes:
(1) Duration. It's ongoing.
(2) "Loudness" - that's the nature of experience.
Meaning it is an ongoing stream of experiences more or less distinct (loud and clear). When those sensations subside, therefore, it is called UNCONSCIOUSNESS. The duration (#1 above) has ended. By definition, then, consciousness is temporal.

What does this imply? A first moment, because an inifinite regress into the past is logically incoherent. In fact, if an infinite amount of time had to transpire to reach today, today would still have not been reached.

What in the world does consciousness have to do with matter?

Wait. I know the answer. Nothing!!!

Where did the "existing matter" come from?

That's like asking, Where did God come from?

Uh, no it's really not like it at all. Not at all. At all.

I was going to address each of your assertions individually, but it's becoming clear to me that you have embraced some sort of neo-Hellenistic philosophy for which I have no sympathy whatsoever. You make so many statements that are diametrically opposed to the Gospel and then you appeal to a certain hermeneutic to prove your point. Why use Scripture at all if, as you say, you are a staunch materialist? My mind is either too large or too small for that to add up. It's not that I mind wasting your time thereby keeping you from serving this stuff up to someone who might buy it, but you need to understand that if you believe God Himself crawled out of some primordial ooze then we've got an infinite way to go to come to some sort of agreement. I don't hold to a radical uber-literalist approach to Scripture but I don't believe that emissions from the nostrils of a materialist form of a Christ have precedence over Scripture, either. The Holy Spirit never contradicts Scripture. The Bible says that 1+1+1=1. You can't materialize that by saying God is like a brain with 3 physical parts because if they're physical they're separate and cannot equal 1. They equal 3. 3 people who work together harmoniously on a project are still 3 people. There are not one as God is One.

But I think you see my frustration, right? Every time I accuse Mark of double-standards and inconsistencies between man and God, he basically replies, "I can assume any distinction I like between man and God because we all know that God and man are nothing alike." Well, in my opinion, man and God are exactly alike from a metaphysical point of view. In fact we are literally shaped in the physical image of the Father seated on the throne, as I tried to demonstrate.

I didn't intend to get this far off topic, but frustration gravitated me here.

As far as your frustration goes, you only have to read my signature to see where I stand. But I can't say I agree with your counterpoint that God and man are exactly the same metaphysically speaking. I don't venture very far into metaphysical questions. I believe that the supernatural is as real as the natural but that also for His providential reasons God has chosen to separate them at least for the time being. I'm encountering Determinism here on CF in a way that is new to me and frankly quite unsettling. The idea that God harbors actual malice for the wicked is completely foreign to me. And if I could accept the view that He created certain people for the explicit purpose of living an unrighteous life and then suffering forever in fervent flames I would probably die of depression.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What makes us so stupid we wouldn't know? Is there a natural law that accounts for our souls? According to natural laws, we are just our physical beings.

I am not saying that all acts of God are of a kind. But they are all acts of God. Whether we say something is supernatural, or it is natural, is of little importance, in the final analysis.

Haha, I can't even remember what started this "by the way" line of posts between you and me.

 

[renniks]

I am not saying that all acts of God are of a kind. But they are all acts of God. Whether we say something is supernatural, or it is natural, is of little importance, in the final analysis.

Haha, I can't even remember what started this "by the way" line of posts between you and me.

I think determinism is bogus. And almost every page of the Bible assumes Free Will to be real. I don't think you got my point. For everything to be cause and effect, you can't have miracles that go against the natural order. It's like throwing a monkey wrench in the gears.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nonsense. Can God not give his creation the ability to make uncaused choices? If not, why does God complain that he must strive with men, and that they do not do what he wants?

I could only guess that claiming God's ability to give man the ability to make uncaused choices, is illogical. I can't prove it, except by claiming it contradicts cause-and-effect, as you take cause-and-effect. But even there, you claim it is God giving the ability. There is one cause.

If cause-and-effect rules, (and remember, that principle is caused, made, by God) the influences do have effect; to claim that our natural ability to choose supercedes the influences, does not give any indication of degree of influence, nor of the idea, often referred to by Reformed doctrine, that the sinful nature holds the lost captive. You have a lot of scripture to answer for, if you deny that the lost need not choose but sinfully. I don't remember who posted, asking how can we say a mother's love for her child, or the Samaritan's sympathy and generosity, can be sinful (I think they said sin, not sinful). I don't deny that a person can choose to do the right thing at times, even most times, but that their choosing is still with bondage to sin. If they tell the truth, when it is hard for them to do, for truth's own sake, it is still only compliance --not obedience.

 

[renniks]

But even there, you claim it is God giving the ability. There is one cause.

But one cause doesn't make all choices pre determined, which is what reformed theology assumes if you take it to its logical conclusion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok so I guess the Gospel isn't simple enough for the common man to understand.
Scripture never says that "b" is never chosen so it doesn't have to explain why.

Actually, it does tell us that "b" is never chosen. It says so many different ways, besides calling the lost, captives to sin. Romans 8:7 says, "because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so."

 

[renniks]

You have a lot of scripture to answer for, if you deny that the lost need not choose but sinfully. I don't remember who posted, asking how can we say a mother's love for her child, or the Samaritan's sympathy and generosity, can be sinful (I think they said sin, not sinful). I don't deny that a person can choose to do the right thing at times, even most times, but that their choosing is still with bondage to sin. If they tell the truth, when it is hard for them to do, for truth's own sake, it is still only compliance --not obedience.

None of this equals determinism. There are examples in scripture were " sinners" choose good. But that isn't even really important here. If a person chooses between any two options with out that choice being determined by God, he has free will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Very well; you are positing then, that the law of cause-and-effect does not prevail. The only way you have supported that is by claiming that "God could" give us the ability to have choice not entirely subject to our nature nor our influences. The Bible says, "...because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so." Romans 8:7

You seem to be saying then, that the lost is not certainly bound by the flesh. It would seem to me that the only way you can logically say that the lost can raise himself above the law of the flesh, then, is by saying that it is done by God's power and grace, because "without [him], we can do nothing". And that is what the Reformed have been saying, all along. God's grace --not man's ability.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What? You can at will switch to a different metaphysics but deny God that ability?

 

[BarnyFyfe]

Actually, it does tell us that "b" is never chosen. It says so many different ways, besides calling the lost, captives to sin. Romans 8:7 says, "because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so."

If you want to think of the Gospel as plan "b" that is your prerogative as a free-willed agent, but the Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world and this sin-filled earth is an anomaly, an outlier in God's perfect and holy universe. If the Gospel was plan "b" then it wasn't pre-determined, either. Earth is in rebellion and under quarantine until the Gospel goes to all the world. Then shall the end come.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think determinism is bogus. And almost every page of the Bible assumes Free Will to be real. I don't think you got my point. For everything to be cause and effect, you can't have miracles that go against the natural order. It's like throwing a monkey wrench in the gears.

I don't even know for sure what you mean by determinism. You have not shown me how free will denies cause-and-effect, and even when you try, you end up redefining everything according to the notion that man can choose independent of cause-and-effect. In other words, you are going around in circles. On top of that, the Biblical law of bondage to sin demands that if man is to able to rise above that, he does so at the grace of God, not by his natural ability.

If I stand by "determinism", it is only because so far, I see no reason to claim man has no real and responsible choice simply because his choice is caused.

You say free will is assumed, I say responsible choice is assumed. For everything to be cause-and-effect, even miracles are effect. You are right, I don't get your point. If man is to rise above the natural law of bondage to sin, it does indeed take God's intervention. Not man's natural ability. And so God's choice stands. You have not defeated Reformed Theology, only affirmed it by roundabout thinking.