Originally posted by twhiteheadmy argument is valid only when someone distributes the possible actions between "Good" and "Evil" with either of them being with at least one element and elements in both of them having varying degrees of goodness or evilness.
Are you saying that a choice is only a 'free will' choice if the options available are ether good or evil?
To what extent does knowledge of the evilness of a choice come into play? If you do not know which choice is the better one, is it still evil of you to chose the bad one?
Do you ever knowingly make the evil choice? Why?
So it was suggested that god should have made us more inclined to do good than evil.(i think it was meant as "God should have made us good, incapable of doing evil"😉 that means we would have been incapable to do some of the most evil things from the "Evil" set. which negates free will. True free will means you have no restrictions on what you choose and your choice is random. The odds of choosing a particular over another are influenced by society, education, certain environment variables at the time etc, but never reduced to 0.
"Do you ever knowingly make the evil choice? Why?"
Sure. because you have free will you may choose to do what is evil for the group you belong to but gives you some kind of benefit.(murdering your aunt to inherit her sooner)
Originally posted by thorvoerrrm this is why i come to spirituality forum 😀.
I think so. All the wickedness was destroyed, even though its present again today. And also there is evidence on the earth that there was a flood adn that there was a God who caused it. The whole point is for people to see the Creator in nature.
tell me please where is the evidence of a massive flood and more where is the evidence that god made the flood?
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i think you cannot have a greater inclination towards good and maintain free will
You have personality, right? That personality influences the decisions you make, right? That is,
if you are generally polite, when faced with a situation when you can be rude, you will likely
choose not to be rude. Your personality constrains your free will, but doesn't dismiss it.
I tend to be straightforward, other people tend to be circumspect. These are aspects of our
personalities.
If God made us with personalities with greater inclinations towards charity, compassion, mercy
and so forth, then perhaps He would not have needed to flood the whole world when His
Creation failed so miserably.
i believe the big guy gave us free will first and all good and evil comes from our ability to choose. and that is why he proceeded with this experiment. maybe i am cynical but i believe him to be bored and so he created life unbound by his will to spice things up
That makes no sense, of course, because experiments are done in order to find out what will
happen. But God generally is described as omniscient, meaning He knows all that can be
known.
if we admit the existence of angels as pure good creatures(except the black sheep of the family lucifer) then how much free will do you think they have? a person could do only good if they were programed only for certain tasks and forbidden to do others.
I tire of explaining this. The word 'lucifer' comes from a mistranslation. It means
'light bearer.' It appears once in the Bible (in the lousy translations) at Isaiah 14:12. It was
not equated with Satan at any time until after the mistranslation appeared in the Latin Biblica
Vulgata. It referred to the King of Babylon.
How much free will do you think Jesus had? His disposition was to do good, right? Why couldn't
we all have that disposition and still have our free will?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesiofirst issue.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]i think you cannot have a greater inclination towards good and maintain free will
You have personality, right? That personality influences the decisions you make, right? That is,
if you are generally polite, when faced with a situation when you can be rude, you will likely
choose not to be rude. Your perso ...[text shortened]... ight? Why couldn't
we all have that disposition and still have our free will?
Nemesio[/b]
my opinion: personality is influenced by external issues. like education, society etc. so if you have a pleasant personality that simply means you took those external factors and adjusted to them, not that God made you this way. by having a greater inclination towards good i meant internal factors, factors you cannot influence or resist. like if your body produces a lot of "nice hormone"(let's say that exist). in that case you don't have a choice but to be good like you don't have a choice of what color your eyes are.
second issue:
i stay by my claim: god has no need of mindless drones to do his biding.
what would be the point of creating us if we only have one possible future.
third issue.
lucifer, beelzebub, mammon, baal, mephisto, whatever. call him skippy the unmerciful. i am refering to the angel that rebelled against god and became later the CEO of Hell Inc.
jesus had a disposition to do good but still he wasn't made to blindly obey. after all he did party at the cana wedding and he did asked god to give him a break and not kill him gruesomely on the cross. the fact that he questioned god's will means he has a will of his own.
if it helps, by making someone more inclined towards good or evil is like programming computers. if "something" do actionA. free will is existent when even if "something" is true, actionA is not 100% sure it will occur.
a computer has no free will and will never do something out of his programming
Originally posted by ZahlanziCan we call him Zahlanzi? If not then why insult lucifer, beelzebub, mammon, baal, mephisto and skippy by using their names to label such an unsavory character?
third issue.
lucifer, beelzebub, mammon, baal, mephisto, whatever. call him skippy the unmerciful. i am refering to the angel that rebelled against god and became later the CEO of Hell Inc.
Do you at least accept that the Lucifer mentioned in the Bible is not the angel of whom you speak?
Originally posted by twhiteheadi only mentioned the angels as an example of a being created with a seriously injured free will. you caring so much about the feelings of beings you don't believe exists is pretty not necessary.
Can we call him Zahlanzi? If not then why insult lucifer, beelzebub, mammon, baal, mephisto and skippy by using their names to label such an unsavory character?
Do you at least accept that the Lucifer mentioned in the Bible is not the angel of whom you speak?
and sure, why not call the lord of darkness zahlanzi. why should i care? surely you realize that if a child is named adolf it doesn't make him a psychotic killer. the problem is that i was trying to make a point and you skipped that and went for the technicality.
Do you at least accept that the Lucifer mentioned in the Bible is not the angel of whom you speak?
on what interpretation of the bible you refer to? do you accept that all names that represent the CEO of hell were at first names for other cultures gods or some people the jews very much disliked? and then when refering to the guy downstairs they used one of those names?
Originally posted by ZahlanziOh? Please tell us which of those are angels? Was it Skippy?
i only mentioned the angels as an example of a being created with a seriously injured free will. you caring so much about the feelings of beings you don't believe exists is pretty not necessary.
on what interpretation of the bible you refer to?
Which ones are there? Do you have one in which Lucifer is the the CEO of hell? Did you actually read Nemesio's post on the subject?
do you accept that all names that represent the CEO of hell were at first names for other cultures gods or some people the jews very much disliked?
But it is not the Jews using the name Lucifer, it is you. And since you clearly have no idea who Lucifer was, severe dislike is hardly a valid excuse.
And if you think "skippy" comes from Hebrew then I give up.
Originally posted by twhiteheadyes, i did read his post, he said that the king james translation is flawed and that he has a better one. because he is sure that the verse from isaiah is wrong. why is he sure? because he probably is catholic
Oh? Please tell us which of those are angels? Was it Skippy?
[b]on what interpretation of the bible you refer to?
Which ones are there? Do you have one in which Lucifer is the the CEO of hell? Did you actually read Nemesio's post on the subject?
do you accept that all names that represent the CEO of hell were at first names for other cultur ...[text shortened]... islike is hardly a valid excuse.
And if you think "skippy" comes from Hebrew then I give up.
this is from king james.
"Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming…How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer…thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." (Isaiah 14:9-16 KJV)
the use of skippy was ironic. to prove a point. lucifer is the name used by king james bible. a bible still used today. the catholic bible refers indeed to the king of babylon.
is it night in the region where your posterior resides? because you are unusually slow.
anyway, if it pleases you, i will edit my original post. maybe then you will get to the point i was trying to make
this is my edited post, mmkay? is this better?
i think you cannot have a greater inclination towards good and maintain free will
i believe the big guy gave us free will first and all good and evil comes from our ability to choose. and that is why he proceeded with this experiment. maybe i am cynical but i believe him to be bored and so he created life unbound by his will to spice things up
if we admit the existence of angels as pure good creatures(except the black sheep of the family-the angel that rebelled against god and became CEO of hell that may or not be lucifer and all his fallen angel buddies) then how much free will do you think they have? a person could do only good if they were programed only for certain tasks and forbidden to do others.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
first issue.
my opinion: personality is influenced by external issues. like education, society etc. so if you have a pleasant personality that simply means you took those external factors and adjusted to them, not that God made you this way. by having a greater inclination towards good i meant internal factors, factors you cannot influence or resist. like if your body produces a lot of "nice hormone"(let's say that exist). in that case you don't have a choice but to be good like you don't have a choice of what color your eyes are.
So, you say you don't have free will because external issues (like education and society) have
formed you with a personality that limits the expression of that will with factors you cannot
resist or influence. Do I have that right?
jesus had a disposition to do good but still he wasn't made to blindly obey. after all he did party at the cana wedding and he did asked god to give him a break and not kill him gruesomely on the cross. the fact that he questioned god's will means he has a will of his own.
Jesus had a disposition to do good. Did Jesus have free will?
Nemesio
Originally posted by ZahlanziDidn't you read my post? The King James is an erroneous translation based on the erroneous
this is from king james.
"Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming…How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer…thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." (Isaiah 14:9-16 KJV)
translation by Saint Jerome back in the fourth century. Why would you persist in an error which
is demonstrably wrong? Don't you like your Scripture to be an accurate reflection of the languages
it translates?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesioi did read your post(don't what time i said that)
Didn't you read my post? The King James is an erroneous translation based on the erroneous
translation by Saint Jerome back in the fourth century. Why would you persist in an error which
is demonstrably wrong? Don't you like your Scripture to be an accurate reflection of the languages
it translates?
Nemesio
what makes king james translation wrong? on who's autrhority? what makes the catholic bible right? maybe they are both wrong. after all, they both are translations after a bad text, in an archaic language.
i am saying that you must never be so sure of your statements
post me some arguments to your claims.
Originally posted by Nemesiono, you don't get me. external factors do not hinder free will because they are not hard coded into your being. even if you grow up in a nice environment that forbids stealing for example, when you grow up you might still take up stealing as a hobby.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]first issue.
my opinion: personality is influenced by external issues. like education, society etc. so if you have a pleasant personality that simply means you took those external factors and adjusted to them, not that God made you this way. by having a greater inclination towards good i meant internal factors, facto ...[text shortened]... s own.
Jesus had a disposition to do good. Did Jesus have free will?
Nemesio[/b]
by internal factors(that do hinder free will) i am referring to genes or some magical mean by which you may never do a certain action. like for instance god puts a magical mean(lets say a hormone) inside you that puts you to sleep every time you think of kicking a bunny.
this is what i said
jesus had a disposition to do good but still he wasn't made to blindly obey. after all he did party at the cana wedding and he did asked god to give him a break and not kill him gruesomely on the cross. the fact that he questioned god's will means he has a will of his own.
and this is what you asked
Jesus had a disposition to do good. Did Jesus have free will?
i am fairly sure i made my opinion clear in "what i said" section. but anyway, jesus had a free will. he questioned god. he had second thoughts that maybe getting beaten in mel gibson's movie and dieing on the cross might not be such a good idea. but he made a choice
Originally posted by ZahlanziUnless I am badly mistaken, the King James version is and was a Catholic Bible. The Roman Catholic Church and other Catholic Churches however recognize the fact that translation is never perfect and try to improve their translation attempts as more information becomes available.
what makes king james translation wrong? on who's autrhority? what makes the catholic bible right? maybe they are both wrong. after all, they both are translations after a bad text, in an archaic language.
You seem to be simultaneously admitting that it may be wrong while hanging onto your claim that it is right. If you are not willing to listen to Nemesio (who I believe knows what he is talking about) then why not look up the Hebrew for yourself?