Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[origamiscienceguy]

I am not denying the humanity of Jesus. But Jesus is also God as well. And you are basing your entire faith on the bible exaggerating a few very specific verses, and very obtusely interpreting a few very specific verses instead of taking them all at face value?

Sure, Mary was blessed. So was almost every other God-Following person in the bible. What does that prove? 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not a Christian, but I'm seeing some dissonance here. And admittedly, having fun with perhaps the single most controversial part of Catholic doctrine vs. the rest of Christianity.

I'm just saying man, while the Catholics may have an obtuse view on Mary it does manage to reconcile the taint of original sin with the human nature of Jesus. Lacking that, there's no answer to how Jesus could be sinless if he was born a man from the womb of a woman also carrying original sin.

[origamiscienceguy]

Lacking that, there's no answer to how Jesus could be sinless if he was born a man from the womb of a woman also carrying original sin.

Sure there is. He is God. Who is infinity^{infinityinfinity} times as wise as we are.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That seems somewhat like a cop-out. If the mystery of God's wisdom is a freely applicable answer, then why should anything happen since it could be much more effectively solved by God's wisdom?

[origamiscienceguy]

That seems somewhat like a cop-out. If the mystery of God's wisdom is a freely applicable answer, then why should anything happen since it could be much more effectively solved by God's wisdom?

free will.

(here we go again...)

He loved his creation, so he gave us free will, and he gave us a solution to get out of our mistakes that we make in our free williness.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That seems somewhat like a cop-out. If the mystery of God's wisdom is a freely applicable answer, then why should anything happen since it could be much more effectively solved by God's wisdom?

free will.

(here we go again...)

He loved his creation, so he gave us free will, and he gave us a solution to get out of our mistakes that we make in our free williness.

Here we go again indeed. But we can talk about problems that don't even directly involve free will violation. Let's take Jesus' life, for example. If God's value of free will is not violated by his interactions with the apostles, then why the plan of crucifixion? His infinite wisdom could be applied to subtly influence but not actually force humanity into rejecting sin otherwise, which solves for everything but original sin, which you already considered solvable by his wisdom regardless.

Or not even that, what about the corruption of the natural world by sin? That doesn't even have anything to do with humanity's free will besides being ultimately caused by original sin. Fixing that doesn't do anything to violate free will, and if anything would serve as a demonstration of why humans should follow God's will freely.

Also, considering the Bible suggests that humans only accept salvation based on the Holy Spirit entering their hearts and changing them, I'm not sure that what is written in scripture actually qualifies as preserving free will in a meaningful sense.

[origamiscienceguy]

All good questions.

God made it clear from the beginning that sacrifice was required to remove sin. (Adam and Eve getting clothes from animal skins) I personally have not delved too deeply into this topic, (but I'm getting a study bible for Christmas, so that should help) from what I know, and I may be wrong, the animal sacrifices were only showing faith in God who would eventually give the true sacrifice, Jesus. Since the people in the Old Testament did not have Jesus, the best they could do was to show their willingness to accept God's promise of a sacrifice by sacrificing their own best animals.

God influencing our thoughts and/or enviroment in such a way that we wouldn't sin WOULD be getting rid of our free will. There would be no possibility of Sin, which is against free will in the first place. Fixing the original sin would also go against free will for the same reason.

It is still possible to reject the holy spirit from convicting you as evident in Mark 3:29

but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin

Anyone who CHOOSES to not accept the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven for obvious reasons.

I hope I answered everything. I'm off the bed now.

[Rose]

Question: aren't we all God's children? I mean, all this stuff about Jesus being God's son seems to be ignoring the fact that he created all of us.

[Frumple]

It's definitely often used rhetoric, anyway. Can't recall how scripturally supported it is, though, heh.

... also, hasn't it been noted quite repeatedly that the scriptural basis for free will is... pretty shaky? Doesn't seem like the best platform to use to contest vis-a-vis the scriptural support for a separate fairly-shaky interpretation, heh...

[Bohandas]

I'm not a Christian, but I'm seeing some dissonance here. And admittedly, having fun with perhaps the single most controversial part of Catholic doctrine vs. the rest of Christianity.

I'm just saying man, while the Catholics may have an obtuse view on Mary it does manage to reconcile the taint of original sin with the human nature of Jesus. Lacking that, there's no answer to how Jesus could be sinless if he was born a man from the womb of a woman also carrying original sin.

Isn't that a cop out? It just moves the issue a generation back.

[Bohandas]

I don't think Jesus was born from a virgin. Can any (other?*) Christians explain why they say that as well as why it matters?

Matthew 1:22-23 explicitly says he was

The section on "Proof from Scripture" does not impress you? Consider that the doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to the Nicene Creed and considered by almost all Christians to be necessary to be a Christian, isn't in scripture either. If that can be inferred, surely other things can.

Not explicitly or connectedly, but most 0f the salient points are there. Matthew 1:23 comes in again here, "...they shall call him immanuel, meaning 'God is with us'", since his actual name was Jesus/ieshua, this can be taken as meaning that people said that he was god among men, and since the referenced prophecy was not in regard to a false prophet or chosen one the implication is therefore that this public opinion was correct.

Furthermore the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed against and is therefore implicitly an aspect of God. You can't blaspheme against a mere angel or prophet.

What IS absent however is any sort of explicit or strongly implicit preclusion against additional aspects. Though he principle of parsimony would suggest against positing additional ones unnecessarily.

The incident in genesis with the three travelers that represent god could imply that three is the preferred number. Conversely, in favor of the possibility of additional aspects are the repeated references in Revelation to "seven spirits of God"

but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin

Anyone who CHOOSES to not accept the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven for obvious reasons.

The contrariness to godly virtue is obvious. But imterpreted as you put it the rest of the details are not. Why should it carry a more lasting chastisement than the seemingly equivalent act of refusing to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.

EDIT:
Chalk that one up as a possible argument for the less than three camp

[Orange Wizard]

It's definitely often used rhetoric, anyway. Can't recall how scripturally supported it is, though, heh.

There's a bit of stuff in Scripture about believers being children of God; unbelievers are way out.

Incidentally, if we add that to the stuff about Christ being the Son of God, and the NT stuff about the church being the bride of Christ, we get the biggest religious incest the world has ever seen.

[Rolan7]

the biggest religious incest the world has ever seen.

The Zoroastrians are rolling in their graves...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

the biggest religious incest the world has ever seen.

The Zoroastrians are rolling in their graves...

Gotta get that sweet, sweet Xwedodah.

[redwallzyl]

interesting article, if short.

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/12/25/460797744/a-religious-forecast-for-2050-atheism-is-down-islam-is-rising

and what is it with smugly superior atheist commenters. this is like a thing very time and their offensive. what with the "the only way for people to survive is for them to become atheists" and "ours is is the only rational and one true way". its like they are what the suppose to hate, religious and smugly confident in their rightness.