From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:37:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.011619.14034@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.050404.14156@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>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?
>
>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.  

>                       After all, if God wanted to do violence to free
>will, then all he would have to have done was to *make* the armies
>that stood before the Ark voluntarily surrender.  

I would say destroying the armies eliminated their free will in this
situation. This is -not- a subtle thing. I wonder if those destroyed
went (will go?) to hell? Their destruction would not be a consequence
of their actions (they might have won, but not all would have been
killed at any rate).

But -if- god did this, it would be a flagrant violation of the free
will of the opposing armies. Your claim that god could have done something
simpler does not change this, or even addres the issue.

>                                                    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.
 
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>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?
>
>There is no if and only if relationship here between grace and the
>"clearer ideas" in the above examples.  I only meant clarity of
>thought as *a* grace or gift from God more in line with 6b above.
>Think of it as you would a pair of glasses to someone who is
>nearsighted and is trying to learn how to read.  The glasses help
>them to see clearer, but it is still up to them to make the effort
>to learn.

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). 
 
>>>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. 
>
>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.
 
>>>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.
>
>I was talking about personal judgement here.  Judges have a civil
>obligation to make sure that justice according to the laws of their
>jurisdiction are carried out.  There is no determination there on how
>sinful a person actually is and in fact is probably not even related.

Well, I have been judged wanting often by those of religious persuasion.
I suspect that your point of view is uncommon.
 
>>>                                                 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 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.
 
>>Rich
>>payner@netcom.com
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic