Message boards :
Politics :
Religion in government
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
I asked if we are given free will (presuming the existence of the [Christian] God), how is it so many fundamentalists seek so often at so many levels to interfere with the free will of others? Particularly when the acts they condemn do not create Earthly emergencies, such as robbery, rape and murder do create. I know what a paradox is. There is no need, in this current portion of the discussion, to discuss whether there exists a supernatural being and whether that being exists paradox free. We face them. If you feel the word "conundrum" suits what is being described better, then go ahead and use that instead and focus on the question. ... because having free will and then using that free will to try and impose your views/will onto others is not at all mutually exclusive. Nor is it hypocritical or otherwise against the Christian teachings. There is no command in the bible that says you shall not try to impose your views onto others. In fact, in some parts its quite the opposite, basically saying 'convert or die' (mostly the old testament, which happens to be the testament most fundamentalist Christians like the most). It is quite simple. Certain people believe God gave them free will. Not just them. All humans. Setting up laws against certain actions, actions which do not create Earthly dangers or at least immediate ones, restricts the free will of others. God says, essentially, "I give you free will. Choose. Live your way or live by my rules and have eternal life. But, go ahead and live your way for now if that's what you like." Some of his followers say, "No, we're going to make you live our way which we believe is God's way." They attempt to nullify the choice offered by their own Most High. It is quite simple. Don't want to call it a paradox? It's still a heck of a big conundrum. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30690 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/do-science-and-religion-conflict-its-all-in-how-you-see-it/2015/10/22/5fade828-78d7-11e5-a5e2-40d6b2ad18dd_story.html Most Americans see a conflict between the findings of science and the teachings of religion. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
It is quite simple. Sorry, I was on a holiday break the past week. Anyways, no thats not a paradox. Again, people supposedly have free will, so why is it either a conundrum or a paradox to use that free will to try and dominate other people? Its a valid choice, although other people may consider you a horrible person for making that choice. If the problem is that they try to restrict the free will of others while free will is in your eyes a divine gift...well, at least according to the bible god itself never really bothered with it either. There are dozens of stories of him punishing people for making a choice God didn't like. He had his followers slaughter entire tribes of people because they worshiped the wrong Gods. Clearly to some religious fundamentalists, especially the ones that excessively focus on the old testament, have a good cause to think their God is fine with them imposing their will on others. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
It is quite simple. It is not "in my eyes" (not that we have it nor, if we do, where it came from). They believe they and all humans have free will and that it comes from the God they believe in. Choosing to dominate others is a choice they have due to their "free will", but then that goes against the very choice "He" gave others (the ones being dominated) as well. In so doing, they violate "His" will. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
It is not "in my eyes" (not that we have it nor, if we do, where it came from). They believe they and all humans have free will and that it comes from the God they believe in. Choosing to dominate others is a choice they have due to their "free will", but then that goes against the very choice "He" gave others (the ones being dominated) as well. In so doing, they violate "His" will. No, they don't violate "His" will because "He" never made it clear that it is "His" will that you don't use your free will to impose your beliefs onto other people and thereby restricting their free will. Again, God himself has on numerous occasions demanded the utter destruction of people who used their free will to worship a different God. And clearly God quite from the start intended to put certain restrictions on free will. The Ten Commandments are proof of that as they clearly restrict what you can and can't do. And usually the punishment for violating such restrictions was death. Just think of the tale of the stick gatherer who was stoned to death for working on the wrong day. Sure, you could argue that God gave that person free will to do whatever he likes, including gathering firewood on whatever day he likes, and that the people who killed that guy on Gods orders ignored that person's free will. But again, God commanded that the guy got executed, thereby setting a rather clear precedent that its totally acceptable for his followers to ignore other peoples free will. Your entire argument rests on the idea that God at some point said that peoples free will is sacred and should never be violated by anyone, but that idea is nowhere present in the old testament, which happens to be the testament fundamentalists like the most. |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
It is not "in my eyes" (not that we have it nor, if we do, where it came from). They believe they and all humans have free will and that it comes from the God they believe in. Choosing to dominate others is a choice they have due to their "free will", but then that goes against the very choice "He" gave others (the ones being dominated) as well. In so doing, they violate "His" will. So, you think fundamentalists believe that there are things that come from God that are not sacred? Hmmm. Ummm, yeah, but no. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
So, you think fundamentalists believe that there are things that come from God that are not sacred? Hmmm. Ummm, yeah, but no. Show me proof that they actually believe free will is something that is sacred. The Bible sure as hell doesn't say such a thing. In fact, there is plenty of stuff in the bible, the source of the Christian religion, that suggests the exact opposite. You just claim its sacred because its a gift from God, according to you. But you aren't the bible incarnate, and therefor, what you claim is irrelevant to Christian fundamentalists. And even if you were the personification of the bible and your word had authority, well there is a good chance that said Christian fundamentalists would ignore every part they found inconvenient anyway. I mean, we are talking about a group that has displayed some of the most awesome examples of sheer hypocrisy possible. This is a group where anti gay bigots are routinely caught having sex with male prostitutes. This is the group that produces people like Josh Duggar, who both molested his little sisters and was cheating on his wife. These are the people that turn a book that is mostly about forgiveness and love and turn it into the manifesto of a doomsday hate cult like the Westboro Baptist Church. Even if you were right and free will was a divine gift that God has made very clear is something everyone should stay away from, you can be sure that there would be Christian fundamentalists somewhere who somehow would have turned that message around and used it as an excuse to try and dominate other people. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30690 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned. After all it doesn't matter anyway, just confess and be born again and all transgressions are absolved. That is the real issue with a lot of fundamentalism. You can be Pol Pot and if a microsecond before you die you accept "gOD" all is forgiven and you are saved! See how their "morals" work! Isn't it brilliant! |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned. Well no, that was my point all along. Sarge claims that fundamentalist *should* find the free will of other people sacred as he claims its a gift from God, I'm saying that fundamentalists (as well as the bible itself) don't look at free will that way. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30690 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned. Their free will (the saved) or other people's free will (the damned)? The damned aren't human in their eyes. |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
The answer to this thread , just look at what happen'd in IRAN ,Indonesia or any other country where religion controls government . Governments must be secular and only tolorate religion but never let it be the deciding factor for policy |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30690 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned. What forgiveness? Christians do not allow the possibility of non-forgiveness, forgiveness is mandatory! Last time I checked the person/thing doing the forgiving had to have free will to make the choice. Essentially they are committing robbery from their God of the gift of eternal life. They do not allow that their God may refuse to forgive or refuse to grant. Without that it isn't forgiveness. As we have established it isn't forgiveness their religion teaches, then your question is nonsense in relation to the discussion. So in direct answer to your non-sequitur, there is nothing inherently immoral about forgiveness, but Christians don't have forgiveness, they have robbery from their God, which is immoral in the maximum. |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
Exactly what is your problem with Roman Catholic Italy? hehehehehehe I bite now where to start mmmm Child abuse , money laundering , the devil worshiping symbols inside the Vatican , crusades , not giving me a annulment of my marriage (yes I married a catholic and to make it worse she was Maltese) which only changed the laws for annulment in 2011 I separated from her in 1990 so I'm still married to her as far as the church is concerned links to the mafia mmm i'll get back to you later when I can think of a few more things :) |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
Wouldn't you prefer the Modern Roman Catholic Church having influence, or possibly control, over many Muslim Countries? Well I spose you got me there , Yes It would have been better |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
Exactly what is your problem with Roman Catholic Italy? Life expectancy Italy 83 years. Syria 68 years. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned. It might be nitpicking, though I don't think Sarge claimed that free will is a sacred gift from God, the claim is that the bible (which is presumably a foundational text of fundamentalists) states that free will is such a gift. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
@Мишель, you don't quite understand. Fundamentalists have their own personal bible. It isn't one you can buy and read. It tells them the order in which everything is sacred. Being an anti-gay bigot isn't quite as sacred as proving a male prostitute is a gay male prostitute and should be stoned. As I have stated before, I defend the right of people to be believers and there several posts I make to that effect from 2006-2008 in particular. (I also defended the right to be a non-believer, even though at that time I was agnostic and thought there was a possibility that something might possibly sway me back.) Мишель, at this point in time you seem to often fill that same role, attempting the right to be a believer. (Let's battle over who defends that right better, ha ha!) At first, I thought you might be a Christian. As you have posted more, I suspect you are not, but you do believe in a God of some sort. (You have that right.) But, if you have not been and are not now a Christian, and did not know that I was (specifically, a Lutheran), then I believe your ability to speak for those of the Abrahamic faiths is limited. I said elsewhere (in this thread, I believe) that I was not attempting to meaninglessly debate philosophy. I believe you have turned a point of the discussion into some meaningless tangent. The point was "Could it be that the reason, or one of the reasons, fundamentalists impose Earthly restrictions on others is because they believe they will face punishment in the afterlife otherwise." (This is not a direct quote, as I am not going to waste even more time scrolling back to find my exact words.) One more attempt and that's it: Granted, some do not believe in free will. Some of those also believe they are God's chosen and therefore they could never do anything wrong in God's eyes. Fine. Whatever. Leave them out of the discussion. There are others that believe in free will. Some of them are Christians. (Quite a lot, I believe. Here, in the US, a small percent that do not believe in it are called Calvinists.) For those that believe in free will, Christian or some other religion that believes in a Supreme Being that created them, where else could they believe their free will comes from??? If it comes from God, how could it be anything other than sacred or some suitably similar word? Of course, those of the Abrahamio faiths believe God gave them the 10 Commandments. In that set of belief systems, then, yes, of course God has his will for us and our behaviors. And we know that, according to that set of belief systems, how that turned out: God had not created robots that mindlessly obeyed. They did not always obey and we know the stories of how God responded to those instances. http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/C_2c.html The "repeating cycle of 'acceptance and rejection'" of God mentioned in the above link is not something I learned of today, but years ago because I was raised as a Christian. Indeed, how can there be any meaningful judgement of humans by God if we are not given the choice to follow His rules or not? To further my claim, I point out that I heard a few years ago the etymology of Israel is "against God". http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Israel Israel Perhaps other interpretations are possible, but it does look like it could mean "has fought against God", as part of the historical cycle of acceptance and rejection of God. Anyone raised as a Christian that paid the slightest bit of attention knows that, without looking at the first link I provided, the Israelites had the ability to choose and, if a choice was made that God didn't like, they believe God punished them directly or allowed them to face hardships. They made those choices despite believing they were God's chosen people. If they could make choices against God's will, they had free will. I can't think of a single thing you've said here that isn't just nit-picking word choices. I still think my question and suggested answer is an interesting one: "Could it be that the reason, or one of the reasons, fundamentalists impose Earthly restrictions on others is because they believe they will face punishment in the afterlife otherwise." Others have suggested other reasons, such as enjoying having power over others, including you (by pointing to the Old Testament). Speaking of the Old Testament: http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (NIV = New International Version.) For those that do believe in free will that also believe in God, particularly, the Christian God (again) where else could they believe their free will has come from? If they believe in free will and are Christians, where does it say that only they were given it? Again, nothing you've said here has stopped me from thinking, for those Christians that believe they have free will that also seek to inhibit the free will of others in instances that are not causing immediate dangers, that they are going against God in doing so. In the Abrahamic set of belief systems, God has His will, then let's his people choose to either accept or reject Him and the rules of life He puts forward and He reacts in the manner He sees fit when his rules are rejected. As for some terms Clyde has recently used, "tolerant" and "intolerant": 1) That exists on both sides. 2) Thus, it is no surprise, since Christianity and other religions have been around far far longer, that if they have often showed intolerance (and some continue to do so) that some atheists show intolerance in return. 3) Most people posting here that have admitted being atheist state that they were not raised this way, but were raised Christian. 4) I suspect that they, as I, have family members, loved ones and friends that are Christian. It's a bit hard to lob around the term intolerant in that case, as I imagine most of them have remained close to family members, loved ones and friends. Even fundamentalist friends. |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
fundamentalists (as well as the bible itself) don't look at free will that way fundamentalists , Comunists , Dictators , Kings , Queens , presidents , Chancalers , whatever have all used the Bible even the Churches them self's and that is why you leave religion out of Governments . As for Free will and the Bible !!! Why don't you read it first . it does say we have choice AKA: Free will !! |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30690 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
It is quite simple. The words blasphemy and apostate belie that fundamentalists are willing to allow others to practice free will. I might point out Deuteronomy 32:35 and Romans 12:19. Perhaps if I may, an example of free will and domination. Person uses free will to practice Wicca. Church prohibits that. Church murders the person by burning them alive at the stake to dominate them, others who might use free will, to prevent the practice of Wicca. I will point out ISIL's burning alive of the Jordanian pilot as a more modern action of an Abrahamic religion where a religion forbids free will and the punishment it imposes if it is used. If I'm understanding Sarge right, a God isn't going to give free will and then insist that the people he gave it to, prevent others from using it. Yes, I know my examples are from the Abrahamic religions, so if you have an example from a different religion, please post. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
As I have stated before, I defend the right of people to be believers and there several posts I make to that effect from 2006-2008 in particular. (I also defended the right to be a non-believer, even though at that time I was agnostic and thought there was a possibility that something might possibly sway me back.) Well you'll have to excuse me for not knowing what you posted almost 10 years ago, given that I only joined the project only a few years ago :) Whether I'm defending the right to be a believer or not better than you doesn't really interest me all that much. Its not a competition, at least, not for me. At first, I thought you might be a Christian. As you have posted more, I suspect you are not, but you do believe in a God of some sort. (You have that right.) But, if you have not been and are not now a Christian, and did not know that I was (specifically, a Lutheran), then I believe your ability to speak for those of the Abrahamic faiths is limited. No more limited than your ability to speak for those of the Abrahamic faiths. So you were a Lutheran (I was raised as a Catholic btw), that means you know about one branch of the many branches in Protestant Christianity. The Christian religion roughly encompasses 2.2 billion people. Not a single person will ever be qualified to speak for all of them. I said elsewhere (in this thread, I believe) that I was not attempting to meaninglessly debate philosophy. I believe you have turned a point of the discussion into some meaningless tangent. The point was "Could it be that the reason, or one of the reasons, fundamentalists impose Earthly restrictions on others is because they believe they will face punishment in the afterlife otherwise." (This is not a direct quote, as I am not going to waste even more time scrolling back to find my exact words.) If thats the question you want answered then the answer is yes, some will undoubtedly think that. An other reason might be that they consider hell to be a real place and simply hate to see friends, family and other loved ones end up there because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ. It can be a blunt, annoying but genuine attempt from their side to help people and save them from eternal damnation. For those that believe in free will, Christian or some other religion that believes in a Supreme Being that created them, where else could they believe their free will comes from??? If it comes from God, how could it be anything other than sacred or some suitably similar word? I think you are overestimating how much the average fundamentalist actually engages with his or her own belief system. I can't think of a single thing you've said here that isn't just nit-picking word choices. I still think my question and suggested answer is an interesting one: "Could it be that the reason, or one of the reasons, fundamentalists impose Earthly restrictions on others is because they believe they will face punishment in the afterlife otherwise." Nitpicking your word choices? You were talking about this in terms of a paradox. Thats not nitpicking your words, thats you making an entirely different argument, namely the suggestion that Christians can't just accept free will as divine gift and yet seek to impose restrictions on it. That was, and has constantly been the main focus of my argument, my point being that its doubtful whether the bible itself actually treats free will as such, its only logically inferred. And furthermore, we are talking about fundamentalists, they tend to be people who have a very curious understanding of what the bible actually says (for example, did you know the majority of Americans believe that the bible contains the phrase "God helps those who help themselves"?). |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.