Lazarus

[Thomas222]

If Lazarus were the rich man, the rich man would have been Lazarus...

Discuss...

 

[Lily_Among_Thorns]

If Lazarus were the rich man, the rich man would have been Lazarus...

Discuss...

I don't know if Lazarus could have been the rich man. I don't know anything of his actions as a beggar, his life as a beggar. It really is hard to say of what Lazarus would do if places were switched. There is not too much told of Lazarus as a beggar. Perhaps the experience made him grateful or perhaps the experience made him bitter. The book just doesn't say.

I could go to the words of Christ where he says, it is hard for a rich man to get into heaven, that it is easier for a camel to thred the head of needle than it is for a rich man to get into the kingdom.

That being said the same that applied for the rich man would apply for Lazarus if he were rich. And then again I think the soul is what truly matters. The soul of Lazarus may be different than the soul of the rich man and Lazerus could quite possibly handle the rich man as the poor man differently than it really happened.

It must be the soul and the experience that will determine the outcome. If Lazarus was good as a poor man then he would have obtained heaven as the rich man. If Lazarus was bad as a poor man then he could quite possibly suffer the same fate as the rich man after death.

There is not enough information within scripture to really draw conclusions, based on judgment, to what Lazarus would have done. We just have the one story. It is quite possible that if the roles were switched then the outcome would remain the same, with Lazarus punished and the rich man in heaven.

 

[151kN]

If Lazarus were the rich man than the rich man would have gone by the name of Lazarus...

Even knowing more about Lazarus we must assume that he was shaped by his physiology and his up-bringing. So nothing would be switched except the names.

If however Lazarus's family replaced the family of the rich man, ie there was some physiological difference then it is impossible to say what would of happened...

 

[Walter Kovacs]

What?

 

[Zaac]

If Lazarus were the rich man, the rich man would have been Lazarus...

Discuss...

 

[talitha]

If Lazarus were the rich man, the rich man would have been Lazarus...

Discuss...

If schmif.

 

[judechild]

If Proposition p is "Lazarus is the rich man," then, naturally, P also is "the rich man is Lazarus."

If Proposition q is "RenegadeofyourGod is trying too hard to sound deep" then Proposition p doesn't matter.

 

[Zaac]

If Proposition p is "Lazarus is the rich man," then, naturally, P also is "the rich man is Lazarus."

If Proposition q is "RenegadeofyourGod is trying too hard to sound deep" then Proposition p doesn't matter.

This thread is

Another direction.

If Jesus had not called Lazarus by name, would every dead person have come out the grave?

 

[Thomas222]

Its much easier to ridicule than it is to adress the question. You will find it is the extreme fundamentalists that tend to ridicule, because the questions I ask are uncomfortable for them as it suggests there is something wrong with their thinking...



Lily, I agree with you, I think your absolutely right. - we cannot know

but also..
the question I was asking was a question concerning freewill - other than livy none of you seemed to pick up on that.

If we say - that Lazarus would be the rich man, if the rich man were Lazarus

then our salvation is determined by our environment and personal and social context. God having 'placed' us in this environment and context, would know, being all knowning, what we would believe in as a result of these contexts. God would know if we were saved before we were even saved. Our salvation would be predetermine and we'd have no freewill in deciding if we believe in Christ or not. This is a big problem.

If we say - that Lazarus would not behave in the same manner if he were rich, and the rich man were poor.

then we say that it is our innate nature, i.e soul, that determines whether we go to heaven or hell - then as God created our 'soul' (nature) our salvation is predetermined.. What is the consequences for a believer if they take one of these views.. well ill let you think about that...


although it is very likely there are other alternatives. Which is why I posted this thread.

 

[judechild]

Now that you've dropped the misty eyes, we can discuss.

Environment has an effect on a person, of course. Aristotle theorized that by the age of seven, a person had developed patterns of behavior that can never change except by trauma. I was more open to becoming a classical pianist because of the principles of western music which I have been exposed to throughout my life. I was also more open to the thought of a single All-Good, All-Powerful God because of my environment; my culture is embued with monotheism. I cannot change these tendencies; they are ingrained in me.

Consequently, the rich man was formed by his upbringing to have certain traits of behavior as well. Ultimately, though, the rich man has power over himself, and is responsible for his actions. I grew up learning to donate my resources to the poor, but I can choose to not donate.

Lazarus' environment affected him too, but environment isn't the only thing that affected him. Lazarus and the rich man would not be the same person if they switched places because a person is not the sum total of his or her experiences. If a person was not able to choose to do good or evil, there would be no sense in rewarding or laying blame to a person.

 

[Tim Myers]

And if wishes were horses, then Lazarus would ride........

 

[Thomas222]

"Now that you've dropped the misty eyes, we can discuss."

I don't think I had 'misty eyes' to begin with... Lilly got what I was saying in the very first post.. you could have to humm...

nevermind..


"Lazarus' environment affected him too, but environment isn't the only thing that affected him. Lazarus and the rich man would not be the same person if they switched places because a person is not the sum total of his or her experiences."

But do you see then how you are taking this view: instead

"then we say that it is our innate nature, i.e soul, that determines whether we go to heaven or hell - then as God created our 'soul' (nature) our salvation is predetermined.. What is the consequences for a believer if they take one of these views.. well ill let you think about that..."

your've cleverly merged the two possibilities together, but it ends in the same result.



__________________

"If a person was not able to choose to do good or evil, there would be no sense in rewarding or laying blame to a person. "

I agree

 

[Thomas222]

Just as a side note: were on the same side here


I believe in freewill and Christ

 

[151kN]

the question I was asking was a question concerning freewill - other than livy none of you seemed to pick up on that.

If Lazarus were the rich man than the rich man would have gone by the name of Lazarus...

C'mon, the second quote implies all of your second post, props please

Seriously though, the only way that free will really exists is if it is God-given, ie if God created us in such a way that we can rebel against our inate biology and surroundings and do something which is out of nature. So if you believe in God you believe that Lazarus would have been able to act differently if he were in the rich man's place.**

**addendum
You dont necessarily believe that he would have only that he would have be able to.

 

[7he4uthor]

Interesting question !
I would say it's possible-likely.

I would also refer you to a banking family who owns over 2/3rds of everyting on earth, under the earth, and in space orbiting earth ...

Nathan Rothschild started his banking carreer on THREADNEEDLE Street ... WHY ? Many say because of messiah's words about going thru the eye of a needle !

Could Lazarus have any association with Rothschild ?


Google


ROTHSCHILD AND OTHER RED THINGS
http://www.tribwatch.com/redshield.htm
ROTHSCHILD - RED SHIELD - GOG MAGOG
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/39483
Ownership Chart: The Big Six
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main
Rothschild family Wki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family
The Illuminati and the House of Rothschild
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/08aug/redshield.html

 

[judechild]

I don't think I had 'misty eyes' to begin with... Lilly got what I was saying in the very first post.. you could have to humm...

That's nice, but I didn't. We have a number of people who come here thinking they're oh so clever and ask vague questions in order to have people answer in one way, only to say something cute afterwards in an attempt to make people look like fools. You are apparently not one of these people.

"then we say that it is our innate nature, i.e soul, that determines whether we go to heaven or hell - then as God created our 'soul' (nature) our salvation is predetermined.. What is the consequences for a believer if they take one of these views..

It is true that the state of our souls determines the final destination of our souls. To say that our salvation is predetermined because God created our souls, though, is to commit a fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I am a pianist, but my native abilities and education did not make it necessary that I become a pianist. If I did not practice and seek out musical scores, I would not have become a pianist. My becoming a pianist is not made necessary by the fact that I had the ability to be one.

Drawing the parallel, the state of a person's soul is determined by one's relationship to God, which is affected by personal choice. If the state of a person's soul is affected by personal choice, then the state of the person's soul is not necessary. If it is not necessary, then it is not predetermined.

In the case of Lazarus and the rich man, the states of their souls were determined - not pre-determined - by their choices. The rich man did not do his human duty toward his fellow man, and his relationship with his neighbor affected his relationship to God. The rich man cannot hide behind his environment, because Zaccheus was a rich man as well, but he changed his ways. The rich man also cannot hide behind a defective soul because his relationship to God has been damaged by his own choices, not because the defect was necessary.

 

[Thomas222]

That's nice, but I didn't. We have a number of people who come here thinking they're oh so clever and ask vague questions in order to have people answer in one way, only to say something cute afterwards in an attempt to make people look like fools. You are apparently not one of these people.



It is true that the state of our souls determines the final destination of our souls. To say that our salvation is predetermined because God created our souls, though, is to commit a fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I am a pianist, but my native abilities and education did not make it necessary that I become a pianist. If I did not practice and seek out musical scores, I would not have become a pianist. My becoming a pianist is not made necessary by the fact that I had the ability to be one.

Drawing the parallel, the state of a person's soul is determined by one's relationship to God, which is affected by personal choice. If the state of a person's soul is affected by personal choice, then the state of the person's soul is not necessary. If it is not necessary, then it is not predetermined.

In the case of Lazarus and the rich man, the states of their souls were determined - not pre-determined - by their choices. The rich man did not do his human duty toward his fellow man, and his relationship with his neighbor affected his relationship to God. The rich man cannot hide behind his environment, because Zaccheus was a rich man as well, but he changed his ways. The rich man also cannot hide behind a defective soul because his relationship to God has been damaged by his own choices, not because the defect was necessary.

sorry if my op was misleading for you, it was not meant to be.


So if Lazarus were to be in shoes of the rich man. So everthing the richman experienced in his life time, Lazarus were to. IFF Lazarus were to go to heaven - even as a rich man. And the rich man to go to hell - even as a poor man.

What you seem to be saying (correct me if i'm mistaken), that it is down to personal choice. So that Lazarus would have made different choices to the rich man, if he instead were the rich man.


I guess the deeper question is this:
Then what is it that determines these 'personal choices'? - if Lazarus were to make different choices to the richman, even if Lazarus were to lead a life identical to the richmans.
What I am saying is that it would have to be his nature, - that determined Lazarus' personal choices... if this were true, then his personal choices would determine his relationship with God. In turn - his salvation would be predetermined.

I suggests there is an alternative explannation - and not one I know - the greatest philosophers in history such as Kant and Hume did not know, if there is freewill or not, both believed there was but the theories they proposed had logical problems within them. So how could we know, if they couldn't?!. The bible tells us we have freewill but does not explain why or how - why? because its not that important, all we need to know is that Christ died for us and have faith in that, and that alone.

I really don't think anyone can say - we definately have freewill. You can say - the bible tells us that we have freewill and therefore I believe that we do. Thats the strongest arguement a Christian can make.

 

[Thomas222]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc =
A occurred, then B occurred.
Therefore, A caused B.

so the classic example is - the argument creationists use, a man finds a watch on the ground and asks if it came there by chance or someone designed it... i'm sure your've heard the arguement...

Something very roughly like this

I found a watch on the ground, so it must have been designed by a designer
therefore, Earth is like a watch, so, God designed the Earth.

whereas what I was saying was:

IFF Lazarus were the richman, the richman would have been Lazarus

IFF A then B, then B then A

its a very simple use of logic


Its not a logical fallacy - i studied logic

 

[151kN]

Im going to assume that no one here believes in determinism then?

Is it possible for someone to be something other then they are? To act outside of your nature is impossible, and your nature is determined by any number of things. Even when someone behaves erratically, ie outside of what someone would consider normal for that individual, there must be some type of trigger, whether that be mental decay, drug use, head trauma... There is no way for us to escape who we are, we are already going to make the choices that we make; we just don't realise it.

 

[judechild]

So if Lazarus were to be in shoes of the rich man. So everthing the richman experienced in his life time, Lazarus were to. IFF Lazarus were to go to heaven - even as a rich man. And the rich man to go to hell - even as a poor man.

What you seem to be saying (correct me if i'm mistaken), that it is down to personal choice. So that Lazarus would have made different choices to the rich man, if he instead were the rich man.

Ah, I see. I understand now.

I guess the deeper question is this:
Then what is it that determines these 'personal choices'? ... What I am saying is that it would have to be his nature, - that determined Lazarus' personal choices... if this were true, then his personal choices would determine his relationship with God. In turn - his salvation would be predetermined.

Even if it were in his nature to make different choices than the rich man, that alone would not show that his salvation was predetermined. For something to be predetermined, it would have to be necessary; but if a person's will affects or guides his nature, then nature does not make an action necessary.

Returning to my example of the piano: we've already gone over that my environment influenced me to take up the piano rather than, say, the Jew's Harp, but it did not make it necessary that I do so.

Now, imagining that I had been cloned when I was eight, and this clone had all of my memories and knowledge, and this clone was presented with the same choice: pick up piano or don't; I don't see that we could say that the choice of the clone to take up piano is necessary based only on the fact that I did so. It is possible and maybe, because of our shared environmental experience and nature, even probable, but I don't see how it is necessary.

If it is not environment or nature that is the source of human choice, then it is at least plausible that it is the will; we call it free because it has the independence to choose.

If the will has independence to choose, etc.

I really don't think anyone can say - we definately have freewill. You can say - the bible tells us that we have freewill and therefore I believe that we do. Thats the strongest arguement a Christian can make.

In my experience, no, I can't say in an absolute sense that I have free will. I can reason that it is plausible that my will is the efficient cause of my decisions, but I can't really go beyond that yet.

I suppose a pragmatist like William James would say that whether or not you are free does not matter from a retrospective view, but that you should assume your will is free because it will give you practical benefit from the perspective of currently existing.

The bit about post hoc ergo propter hoc was because of a misunderstanding on your point (though you really don't do Paley credit. I don't agree with him, but he was a bit more involved than that... but that's for another time).