From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 20:33:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.172621.4597@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.223721.18301@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>
>>>Rich, I see a difference between free will (the freedom to choose
>>>the way I wish to behave) and reaping the consequence of the
>>>choice I made.  
>>
>>The difference is when the consequences are supernatural in origin
>>and a result of a godly decision. I made no such decisions, how then
>>can I be held responsible for them? Responsibility and authority need
>>to be equally matched, or one cannot be responsible, wether or not
>>one is held responsible.  
>
>I guess that we must have different definitions of what free will
>is.  You seem to think that free will is the ability to succeed in
>whatever I attempt to do.  

This absolutely did not come from anything that I posted. And I disagree
with it quite strongly. 

We interfere with each other's free will all of the time. But there is
a difference, we are not gonna sentence wach other to an eternity in hell
if we don't follow each others dictates. 

>                            I maintain, however, that free will is
>the ability for myself to choose the course of action I intend to
>do.  

So your friend who chose to steal, was not his free-will infringed upon
when god changed things on your behast?

>         That is, I always have a choice of whether to do good or
>evil, and there is no one controlling my choice.  

So being threatened with hell for not following the 10 commandments
during childhood and ones formative years will not define the chioces
one might take. Notice also, the 10 -COMMANDMENTS-, as I said earlier,
but it got chopped, the existance of these devine commandments infringes
upon free-will. God is telling you what to do and not do.


>                                                   Now I may not
>succeed in doing evil or good, but that doesn't change the act.
>Take a person plotting to kill their friend.  Whether or not they
>actually succeed is immaterial, but they are free to choose to
>ignore the impulse of violence that they might have, or to plan a
>murder. 

I suspect that it is more a matter of conditioning, and that it is
not quite so simple. I am reminded of those saying that an addict can
just choose to stop using <whatever, cocaine comes to mind>. But saying
that ignores what an addiction is. If they could stop, they would not 
be addicts.
 
>>>                                                    He could have
>>>*made* Pharoh let the Israelites go their way, and spared everyone
>>>the 10 plagues.  But he didn't.  Yes, I see God intervening but I
>>>guess I don't see this intervention as being contrary to our free
>>>will.
>>
>>Why all these "could"s? When we have a topic dealing with what -is-
>>in the bible, you refuse to talk about it, and get theoretical. I do
>>not understand this. There are an infinite number of "coulds", all
>>irrelevant to the issue.
>
>Because these "could's" are examples of violation of the definition I
>was using of free will, whereas your examples do not.

So for the sake of discussion, I must use your definition, but you are
not willing, for the sake of discussion, to use mine?

>>So man is incapable of doing anything good "but by the grace of god"?
>>If this is the case, noone -deserves- to go to heaven, we just have
>>gods favorites (think of the teachers pet). 
>
>I would phrase it that it would be very hard for someone to live an
>entire life of substained goodness without the grace of God, given
>our human nature.  

Are you saying that man is basically evil, and that without god, there
would be no good?  BTW, I do not know anyone religious who has not done
bad things. And I do not know any non-religious people who have done no
good things, which would seem odd, unless they get the 'grace of god'
despite lack of belief.

>               You're right, of course, in that no one merits heaven
>by themselves, but from God's gift to us in our Redemption by His

Actually I was being sarcastic.

>Son.  However, I do not believe that *anyone* misses out on heaven
>"by mistake".  God, being the perfect Judge that He is will take *ALL*
>factors into consideration, unlike us who are incapable of doing so.
>
>>>>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. 
>>>
>>>Why?  He hasn't force His will on that person.  That person is still free
>>>to continue to steal.
>>
>>How can god make things 'clearer' expect by changing -something-? If this
>>was done at your request, then that person had no choice in the change.
>
>Changing something doesn't alter anybody's will by itself.  

The something would have to be inside that persons head. I cannot
change your mind, but in this case, god would have to change something
in that persons mind. This would be a supernatural change, in the
home of free-will. Think about it.

>                                                           The
>change that I'm talking about is the removal of obstacles, but
>that in itself does not guarantee that the person will choose
>good.  If you had a desire to read but had a hard time seeing the
>page then that obstacle might hamper you from carying out your
>desire.  But if I have you a pair of glasses, then the obstacle
>goes away and you act upon your desire.  I have not infringed upon
>your free will by giving you glasses, have I?  

The problem here is you are using a physical example. And since god
is not supposed to change things physically, this is not allowed.
Therefore all we have left is to change someones mind, which would
be an infringment.

Hmmm, god as an optomitrist.

>                                                 You still could
>freely choose to watch TV instead of reading with those new
>glasses I've given you...

But without the glasses, I would not have been able to choose to read.
 
>>>>>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 guess I don't follow you, what do you mean?
>>
>>If god does anything, anything at all, than the game was not won or
>>lost by personal merit. Doing your best is a personal thing, either
>>you do it, or you do not. If god helps, it ain't -your- best, whatever
>>it might be.
>
>As I stated above, I just don't see it that way...

Now I do not follow you. Could you explain rather than giving non-answers?
 
>>payner@netcom.com
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic