From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:45:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Oct5.050404.14156@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.165017.28034@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:

>>
>>I strongly believe that God *never* enfringes on our free will. 
>
>It seems to me that from Adam on, free will has not been too gods
>taste. Did not the armies that stood before the Ark of the Covenant
>perish? It is likely that without divine power, things would not always
>go so well. And did not the ten commandments rather restrict the
>excercise of free will?  It seems that the OT is full of god stepping
>in and changing things, often in major ways. The god of the OT was
>a vengeful god, was he not? Do what he says or perish. Free will?
>Where?
>
>>I believe that sometimes he makes ideas clearer (grace, for this
>>discussion) to us but that we are always free to reject them. 
>
>Grace n. 6a. Divine love and protection given to Mankind by God.
>          b. A virtue granted by God.

	A couple of textual criticisms here:

	In the Greek, the word for grace was "charisma", which can be
translated as "gift" as well as grace. This is where our word 
"charismatic" comes from. If we look at the modern usage of the
words "charisma" or "charismatic", we find that they correspond
to what the Greeks meant by the "grace" word. 

	In Greek mythology, Apollo was the source of "charisma', being
the most versatile and talented of the Gods. A person (Alexander the
Great comes to mind) who was especially talented and versatile was
considered to be favored of Apollo, and imbued with the "spirit" of 
Apollo (here we have to understand that Greek mythology was primarily
about man imitating the gods, which resulted in the ultimate breakdown
in the distinction between powerful men and the gods, in the Hellenistic
Greek and Roman empires.

	Anyway, St. Paul and the early church redefined the terms of
grace by resubordinating man to divine rule, and making man more 
dependent on God's initiative to obtain "charisma". God himself
chooses what gifts a man should have, and man reciprocates by
rendering his gifts appropriately to the service of God. The early
Christians were unsparing in the assertion that human beings who
misused their gifts would have them taken away. This theme is found
widely in the Gospels as well as the Acts and Paul's letters.

	Two concepts are bound up with grace. They are the (new)
covenant, and the "elect". The covenant merely asserts that the
relationship of God and man is based on mutual interaction and
reciprocal responsiblities. To the extent that human beings exercise
their "right to choose", they can opt for a relationship which brings
them into harmony or conflict with God. Seemly contradictory with this
doctrine is that of the "elect", which suggests predestination and the
lack of free will. However, the primary purpose of the doctrine of
the elect seems not to have been just a rationalization for those
individuals who choose to turn away from God, but more so to ensure
that those who do choose God stand not on their own merit, but solely
on the grace/gifts/charisma given to them by God. Both aspects of
thinking about the "elect" dominate the Calvinist theology - and
represent both the outstanding virtue and terrible flaw of
that system. (Augustine also introduced it into the Roman Church, which
has seldom stressed it since).

>
>I am also unclear on what grace is. My paperback Websters gives no
>definition which pertains to making ideas clearer. But is a virtue
>granted of the same value as a virtue learned?

	The above commentary should make the answer clear from 
an orthodox Christian perspective. John's comments below also 
illustrate the identity of "charisma=gifts" and grace.

>
>>For example, if I know someone who has a problem stealing, then I
>>might pray for that person.  Now God might enlighten that person
>>so that they realizes that it is wrong to steal or help them if
>>the stealing is compulsive so that they are able to overcome this
>>behaviour, but *only* with the cooperation of their will.  If they
>>are unwilling to stop and cooperate with the grace that has been
>>given to them, then God will not infringe on their free will.
>
>It seems to me that if god did this in answer to -your- prayer, then
>his(her, its???) free will has been infringed upon. If it was a request
>by the person with the problem, then it would not. 

	It should be clear by now that "free will" is no absolute
concept in Christian thinking. But then, neither is its opposite.

>
>>This is why it is never a good idea to judge anyone because we
>>never have the full picture as to what grace that person had at
>>the time.  Only God knows that and can make a determination as to
>>how sinful a particular action actually is.
>
>So then what judges do is wrong? If someone burgalizes my house, and
>I catch them in the act, I will judge that they have done me wrong,
>and I do not see how anything will change this. By this kind of
>reasoning (if I understand what you are saying) Jeffrey Daumer (sp?)
>should have been set free, given his upbringing, he could do nothing
>else.

	As the Gospels state, "To whom much is given, much is required."
The corollary is that little is required to whom little (grace) is given.
If we think about it, absolute justice would not be possible without 
a concept which balances human actions with human capabilities. None of
us are off the hook, and none of us are hopeless cases.

> 
>>As an aside, IMHO, I don't believe that God favors one sports team
>>over another.  And why would any player want this?  
>
>The fans, they would want this. Many have small wagers on the outcome
>of the games. There are millions of fans.
>
>>                                                 After all, if
>>they knew that the only reason they won a particular game was
>>because God bent the physical rules for them or made the opposing
>>team play suboptimally, then where is the merit in winning the
>>game?  I can see a player asking God to help them play to the best
>>of their ability at the time, however...
>
>Then why should anybody pray for anything? 

	I was tempted to cut out this last exchange, since it seemed
highly trivial. But perhaps not. Bertie Russell spilled lots of ink 
condemning God for not creating a universe up to his (exacting) standards
of rationality and perfection. I suppose there are some minds so small
that they condemn God for not winning their football games for them.
I am minded of the Confederate soldier who was *saved* in the winter
of 1863 - after Lee lost at Gettysburg, that winter the Army of Northern
Virginia had an old fashioned "Praise the Lord" revival (Skeptics note -
it is in the history books, check out Southall Freeman) - and said that
he had asked the Lord for what he wanted, but the Lord gave him what he
needed. Clearly that man had a problem, and God helped him solve that
problem. Such is the way of faith.


Followups to talk.religion.misc

	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.