ADN

At 3 A.M. a few weeks ago I finally and randomly put together an acceptable solution to the dilemma noted in the post title. Here we go:

The approach is all wrong. The question is not, "Do we have free will or are we determined," but rather, "how in the world can these two interact?" See, there are too many unsuitable consequences for embracing one or the other (Free will: how can God maintain control/sovereignty; Determinism: how can we not be considered robots at least in some sense or how can some people end up in hell) to try to separate them. We need a Hegelian synthesis.

So, this is what I think: We are determined to do the good, until we choose to do the bad. Think of it like this: You are on a straight road with a car that travels perfectly straight. You are not choosing to go straight. You can however, choose to yank the wheel to make a turn. The straight road represents God's will, the turns represent straying from it.

What does this do for philosophy?

1) Gives us moral responsibility while denying us credit for moral success. Christians have unconsciously held this mindset for a long time, even though the ideology came about more from religious hypocrisy rather than sound logic. When something good happens, they say, "Glory to God." If they mess up, they say, "I sinned." This theory makes that OK to say but now it actually makes logical sense.

2) Provides acceptable answers to many of the problem questions associated with both Free Will and Determinism theories. See below:

Determinism objections:

PROBLEM: God determines who goes to heaven and hell. God must therefore choose who goes to hell. (Before this theory, the only decent rebuttals I know of are either to abandon the idea of hell or take away some of God's sovereignty by saying that he doesn't choose who goes, he only knows who goes).

ANSWER: God wants everyone to go to heaven, and has set us up to arrive there. Heaven is ours to lose. This way we can't take credit for our salvation. All we can say is, "I didn't screw up." This is beautiful because it denies us credit for finding salvation but yet it keeps heaven and hell "fair."

PROBLEM: We are just robots; what is the real point of life? (Problem 1 is actually a result of this in certain ways)

ANSWER: We are robots with potential to break free from our robotic-ness. Since we have to constantly make a conscious choice to be a robot, being a robot actually holds meaning. It is a very interesting dichotomy, but it is key. You don't choose good, you just refrain from choosing bad. Not a huge difference, but this makes all the difference when the theory plays out.

Free Will objections:

PROBLEM: God is not in control.

ANSWER: He is in control now, since we are determined to do his will. However, this theory does not give him as much control as I would like (since we can still choose evil) but it is an acceptable amount for me. Perhaps choosing evil is just like choosing a winding road that goes to the same place as the straight one somehow. You will still achieve God's purpose for your life, you just get to pick your own pain-filled path to get there. I dunno, this is a slightly weak part to my theory in my opinion, but I feel it is still an upgrade from before.

PROBLEM: (similar) God is not completely sovereign

ANSWER: God is still as sovereign as can be while allowing us some room for choice. He used his sovereignty to sacrifice a bit of his sovereignty to allow us choice. Note: this is just a regular response to this objection that I feel is adequate and is not really new with my theory.

So, there ya have it. One last thing I forgot to tie in: I think the fall is what spawned our ability to choose evil. Before that, evil was something that always felt like it was possible, but wasn't actually possible. A little weak, I know, but again it's better than before...

What do you think?

Oh wow...So many tangents..!

But I'll start here...Where did you get the idea of God wanting everyone to go to heaven/hell..?

I am speaking from the perspective of the common Christian belief that God is all-good and all-loving.

For God to be good/loving, it seems necessary that everyone should at least have a shot at getting to heaven. After all, if some people are doomed for eternity from the start, many Christians will argue that a concept such as that is not compatible with a loving God.

Make sense?

Actually my response to this goes something like this:

1) You are an all powerful deity -- but you want "children" that are not puppets.
2) You decide to create free will -- this falls in "The create a rock so big you can't lift it" problem. So you can't do it by "zapping it". You have to design a process for generating it.
3) So you generate a universe that has chaos at it's root (see Quantum Mechanics) and create beings that are based on that Chaos with a capacity for love.
4) You have to "Butt Out" to keep from trivially suppressing their free will. Even to the point of not taking them into the afterlife unless they ask.
5) (The important step) Rinse, repeat.

God is mobile in time, so he can see results. Changes in the past butterfly effect in to the future. (Problem: What do you do for the souls inadvertently destroyed?) The higher the population, the less room for direct ("miraculous") interaction and the more that you have to rely on the will of the individuals to ask for your help.

Earth is training for Heaven which is training for...Hell is merely deciding to go it alone (or maybe giving up). Not standard Christian doctrine but its matches closely in actual outcome, assuming you believe that Grace is *the* important Christian doctrine.

Aemeth wrote: For God to be good/loving, it seems necessary that everyone should at least have a shot at getting to heaven..............

Make sense?

We've kinda hit around this before, and it may take raum to hit us off w/some direct translations, but I have never read anything in the bible that suggests we have a shot at either...I'm sure plenty of Christians believe this, but as far as I know, the belief in a heaven and hell as actual locations for souls or what have you is pure fiction...Milton, I believe...So, if we are assuming that is true, then I can carry on, but if that's up for debate, then we need a new topic to iron that out before I can level on this topic in the right state of mind...

Aemeth wrote:At 3 A.M. a few weeks ago I finally and randomly put together an acceptable solution to the dilemma noted in the post title. Here we go:

The approach is all wrong. The question is not, "Do we have free will or are we determined," but rather, "how in the world can these two interact?"

Simple, we are given free will, and should we choose, we can abide by a higher will. We CHOOSE to SERVE. We are chosen to serve because we choose to serve.

See, there are too many unsuitable consequences for embracing one or the other (Free will: how can God maintain control/sovereignty; Determinism: how can we not be considered robots at least in some sense or how can some people end up in hell) to try to separate them. We need a Hegelian synthesis.

Hegelian synthesis? Oh, you mean a madeup mash-together that only reconciles the superficial misunderstanding that led to the intellectual challenge in the first place without highlighting the base assumptions are too presumptions to have any integrity. Fear of punishment is used to hold fear over those who lack the discipline to be true to themselves. People say "if you do such, you will go to hell. I reply, if I am not true to my nature, that which goes to heaven is but a fake me." But the idea of hell promoted by most is ridiculous... it is a constant seperation from their own currrent sad spiritual state which they project on others.

So, this is what I think: We are determined to do the good, until we choose to do the bad. Think of it like this: You are on a straight road with a car that travels perfectly straight. You are not choosing to go straight. You can however, choose to yank the wheel to make a turn. The straight road represents God's will, the turns represent straying from it.

I think "good" and "bad" are total shit, and buzz words used to make us limit our actions into stable and predictable behaviors that can be socially manipulated. As for philosophy, Ambrose Bierce said it best in the "Devil's Dictionary":

PHILOSOPHY, n.
A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing.

PROBLEM: God determines who goes to heaven and hell. God must therefore choose who goes to hell. (Before this theory, the only decent rebuttals I know of are either to abandon the idea of hell or take away some of God's sovereignty by saying that he doesn't choose who goes, he only knows who goes).

YOUR FLAW IS THAT HELL IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT IS. Abraham spoke of going to Hell (Sheol) when he died. And Jesu was delivering people from Gehenna (Gehinnom). These aren't even the same places. The Christian's greatest flaw is that they are stuck in the dilemma that can only occur in putting faith in hearsay that comes from men who are simply giving their two cents worth on translations of languages that none of the people in contemplation speak or understand. God doesn't decide who goes to hell... A certain rank of his angels (Beni Elohim Ha-Aralim) decide who is condemed to dwell with El Ha-Shaitan-El.

ANSWER: God wants everyone to go to heaven, and has set us up to arrive there. Heaven is ours to lose. This way we can't take credit for our salvation. All we can say is, "I didn't screw up." This is beautiful because it denies us credit for finding salvation but yet it keeps heaven and hell "fair."

This is the threat made to peasants in hopes they will not revolt. See: the French Revolution. It is still employed to keep people in line, because it makes pretense to humility, and teaches people to enjoy their squalor for it is evidence of their reward to come. Bah, sheep, bah.

What the HELL do you need saving from? Gehenna? Do you even know what that is?

ANSWER: We are robots with potential to break free from our robotic-ness. Since we have to constantly make a conscious choice to be a robot, being a robot actually holds meaning. It is a very interesting dichotomy, but it is key. You don't choose good, you just refrain from choosing bad. Not a huge difference, but this makes all the difference when the theory plays out.

I am not a robot. I am man, in whom is God.

Ok before we continue on I need to know where you are coming from, raum.

First, what must a man do be "saved"? Or how about: What is the essence of John 3:16?

Second, "A certain rank of his angels (Beni Elohim Ha-Aralim) decide who is condemed to dwell with El Ha-Shaitan-El.": How is this decided?

Third, what role does man play in salvation, and what role does God play?

New topic..! LoL....Aemeth, your simply being here brings this forum to life...Already, like 6 topics are here for the making... :)

If I'm thinking correctly, being 'saved' would also have another meaning...My guess is that the places considered to be hell are probably actual physical locations...The rank of angels mentioned by raum I am familiar (As in he's discussed the ranks before) but the EHSE is new to me...I'd like to dive into that as well, elsewhere less this thread be hi-jacked completely...

No no no, no new topic is necessary, we will just branch out before we bring it back together :)

Raum, dumb down for me a little and answer those questions I asked in terms I can understand or else this is pointless lol...

I am sure you know what I am asking in terms of salvation...fashionable Christianity's view of John 3:16...

Same with Heaven/Hell selection and how man's role plays a part...Use analogies if possible, I usually understand your analogies ha...

After we are on similar ground, we shall readdress the original dilemma...Because I am not satisfied with our answers yet ;)

Aemeth wrote:Ok before we continue on I need to know where you are coming from, raum.

Let me get out my protocol droid and see if he speaks "monkey" <jk>

First, what must a man do be "saved"? Or how about: What is the essence of John 3:16?

The essence of John 3:16 is someone talking about someone they never met to people who have no context by which to disprove the person who is allegedly addressing them in writing. This is "team speak" to motivate missionaries who are getting disheartened becuase no one is listening to them after they keep being unable to form a good argument. Like motivating salesmen when their leads aren't paying off.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

Now will you buy our snakeoil? Oh, we know it works cause we believe it works, not because we actually used it to some great success. We accepted the teachings and now look we have a purpose in life - by sharing the teachings. This is what we call "spam".

UNLESS you can definitively tell me that some Christian has not perished, SOLELY because of his belief in "him". Here is where the idea of "testimony" works. We get satisfied customers to share that they personally got their promise fulfilled, which allows for personal interpretation of our intitial claim. "You heard the masses, their savior can even cut through a metal can and still slice a tomato... Now how much will you pay!" That is how christianity blew up, by getting people to believe the hype.

Which has little to do with the Charistos the Eucharistos, or the Ecclesia, much less that which is called Dei Catholica. but damn if a gunzu can't cut metal and fruit interchangeably... ;)

Second, "A certain rank of his angels (Beni Elohim Ha-Aralim) decide who is condemed to dwell with El Ha-Shaitan-El.": How is this decided?

only that rank of Malikim know, and they call it a word that means "Thy will be done." Their name is "The sons of Elohim, The Mighty Ones." We presume they speak to Shekinah, the descending force of the Elohim that extended into Solomon's temple. It is known one can be found to "Hold the Keys of Hell and Death" and venture into hell with prospect of exiting. This is what Jeshua did, and is a "power" of those who achieve Messhiach, according to the Essene teachings.

Third, what role does man play in salvation, and what role does God play?[/qeuote]

I do not use the word "God" as a being... but as a progression... it is synonymous with the word Justice in Hebrew, or the word "Fate". El is the being which dictated G-d is Ahab, or Love. It is the will of El through his four letter ineffable name that the hebrew dictates, not the will of God.

To me arguing with casual christian concepts is flawed from the beginning it is a serious error resulting the bias presumptions of imprisoned translaters with no fluency in the works they attempt to promote. Alot like arguing with a child that eating a red crayon and a blue one tastes no different than eating two purple crayons. sheer waste of time because you should be teaching the child to not eat crayons.