It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If God Gave Us Free-will, Why do Religions try to take it away?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: ketsuko
God gave you the choice, including the choice of which religion to follow or not as you see fit.

So why are you complaining?


Were we given any choice to choose? or was it imposed on us?



You are an adult aren't you? Are you capable of making your own decisions or do you let someone else make them for you?

Responsibility is part of being a grown adult.

As a child you do as you are told but once you grow up.... you make your own decisions.

Sounds like you are having a problem doing this.




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs




So the idea that good couldn't exist without evil is what I like to call a Pulled Out of Thin Air Fallacy.


Au contraire, me thinks. The only reason something is deemed "good" is because it isn't "bad", or worse "evil". It's all just different positions on the same line.





If my football teams wins tomorrow night it will be a good thing...
If we lose it won't be evil.



Better yet there is no cure for Cancer...
That's "normal" as the OP put it...

A cure for cancer is a good thing...
If we never find a cure that's not really "evil", it's just not good.
Good exists without evil.


So, evil is independent of good? How can that be? Separate universes, one good and one evil that have merged?


I've given 3 firm examples of goodness without even the need for the concept of evil.
The concept of good it's paramount to the examples because of the feeling of goodness people get when they do good things.
So of course they're independent.


Besides which good and evil do exist...
So it's a moot discussion.



if god were to speak to you in a dream and command that you slay your children, would you do it?


I don't know if I would.


you wouldnt have a choice, would you? not if your god demands it.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: ketsuko
They also call him puba ( I spelled it wrong but sound it out)


This is incorrect. Muslims other name for Yahoshua is not pbuh.It is an acronym of the phrase "peace be unto him" some Muslims say after the say a one of their prophet or an archangel's name.
edit on 3-2-2016 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: ketsuko
I think the confusion is that some are treating the issue as if good and evil are sort of like Newton's Law - For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Instead, they want to say, For every good, there is an equal and opposite evil.

Well that isn't true. There very much can be good independent of evil and vice versa.

However, when we say that one cannot exist without the other, it is in simple recognition of the fact that we exist as beings capable of making value judgments and as such, we cannot make the value judgment of good or even recognize such a state without being likewise able to recognize that which is not good, or even evil.

And for those of faith, it goes deeper. There are objective truths and objective standards of good, but I don't think that's necessarily an argument for this thread. It is enough to recognize why good and evil exist and will exist for humans. We will insist on making value judgment and unless we figure out how to change that intrinsic part of our nature, good and evil are not going away anytime soon.


every good can be an evil in the right context, and every evil a good.


When can rape be good?

When can pure charity be evil?

They're independent of each other, completely.


some would argue that a female who enjoys a long caeer of facilitating the acquisition of children for the slave market and young innocent women for prostitution is deserving of such a fate, tenfold.

use your imagination. life is far too diverse to assume the same choices happen in the same cirumstances every time. a trillion possible scenarios with a trillion different victims and injustices and rationales. the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
edit on 3-2-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: ketsuko
God gave you the choice, including the choice of which religion to follow or not as you see fit.

So why are you complaining?


Were we given any choice to choose? or was it imposed on us?



Humans (and animals) make a multitude of choice everyday however none of then are free of causation.On top of that the multitude of choices everyone else has made through the annals of earth history and acted upon are also in the mix and infringe upon a persons choices even when they are in direct or distant times.The fact is a person makes choices through the mechanism of the mind called the will. Everyone makes choices according to their nature and experiences which form their character.It is impossible to "change" your own nature however the choices you make then act upon and experience can and will alter your character.

Not having a will free of causation does not mean being controlled by some other being like a God.Causation is a "nature law" of the physical realm that cannot be broken.That is why it is absurd to believe in a will free of causation.It is an illusion based on disillusionment.It is like believing you can pick your self up unaided because you can bench your own weight.The irony is the God believer paying lip service to doing Gods will while circumventing it with their own free will.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Rex282
Okay then I was wrong about that. It's isa/Jesus that was the issue. Jesus is Isa and she wasn't aware of that.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: MurgatroidNot to the people who follow them.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MurgatroidThe point of calling a faith Abrahamic is to say it is descended from Abraham. Arabs are considered Ishmaelites as Jews are Israelites. It's a religion thing, has nothing to do with chrislam despite what you have read.
The term itself is older than the term Chrislam. Nobody cares about or wants Chrislam except a few. Abrahamic just means the three faiths claim Abraham as patriarch, it is not anything worth writing about unless you have an agenda.


edit on 3-2-2016 by areyousirius360 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma



I was being a tad flip with "sycophant" ... forgive me. I actually understand a tad more about Islam than most outside Westerners, but onward.

No worries.




Good points... my own take is that we ARE born with an inherent urge to look for a "father figure" or presence behind the scenes, the part of our physical brain searching for some god, and that impulse is within my core being, too, but I assert that that is the end of it... whether that urge is a created hint of the creator or a fluke of a somehow expedient evolution, I've no clue, but a "THANKS for the ride and neat simulation, I'll try to help the other creations" seems sufficient from my own perspective.

I believe nearly all humans are born with the instinctive longing for there to be something greater than ourselves. I think this explains why the vast majority of humans throughout time have worshiped or idolized something, be it the moon, the sun, a carving/idol, the dictates in a book, their ancestors, war heroes, volcanoes, etc. I think we usually just argue over what to accept and to what extent we should accept them. I even poke at some of my atheist friends who seem to use people like Einstein and Stephen Hawking as modern day prophets of science, quoting their teachings the same way we quote our teachings.

As for the bolded part, I can agree with that to an extent. I don't really care what people follow, even other Muslims, as long as they do no harm. And I have a strong respect for anyone who treats God's Creations kindly, even if they don't believe in God or see it as helping His Creations. So in that regard, a Devil worshiping environmentalist gets more respect from me than a believer who does mountaintop removal mining.



But perhaps I was created as a defective doubter of constructs I see as man made control mechanisms, and if I'm mistaken, then I throw up my hands and condemn myself to whatever punishment He deems suitable as it's the way He made me and what can I do with that?

Not sure what to say here. lol His judgment is far beyond my comprehension.



But I sometimes envy folks who were born without that doubt... seems comfy.

I actually think you're touching on a stereotype here. What makes you assume believers have no doubts? That's literally the point in "faith" and the emphasis that many religions place on faith. Also, it completely ignores individuals and the reasons individuals become believers. If you ask individual believers specifically why they chose that path, you'll see what I mean. We all have our own reasons and multitude of reasons for why we believe in what we do.

Then there are extreme cases like myself. I don't even consider myself a "believer" because I "know" these things are true. Then again, from an atheist or "rational" mind, they would just say I've experienced a convergence of hallucinations, coincidences, epiphanies, intuitions, sleep paralysis episodes, "intrusive thoughts", and urges from my "conscience" that all coincidentally matched up & reinforced each other. But at what point do all of these incidences become more than just "coincidence"?

I actually find it laughable that the counter argument is the "god of the gaps" argument of "mental illness". And even funnier is the fact that religiously, we believe God does try to point people in the right direction, let them know of His presence, and has placed signs of His Creation throughout Nature. But humans are idiots. We nearly die in an emergency, are saved by something "miraculous", and then write it off as a fluke. We accept that "consciences" and "intuitions" are real, but ignore their implications. The "placebo effect" is the most obvious proof of the "power of faith" that I can imagine, yet people only accept it if it has a nonreligious name. We accept that there are numerous unexplainable things that can occur with the human mind, like multiple personalities; yet we lump them together as "mental illnesses" because we don't understand them. Or to be more exact, we understand them perfectly if we accept that the Devil/Jinn & "evil" are real, and that they can influence people through their suggestions. Instead, people are too stubborn to admit that.

So ironically, I don't think it's believers who are the ones with doubt. I think it's you (plural) who are the ones who are overcome with doubt (note: each "you" in this paragraph is plural). If an Angel showed up right now, many of you would think it was CGI, a hallucination, or a hologram. If a mountain crumbled in front of you & spelled out the words "This is Proof!", many of you would say it was a publicity stunt. I'm convinced that God could resurrect the dead in front of you, morph an ant into a t-rex in front of you, and cause a funnel cloud to hover above your head which drops 1,000 lemmings that all have the word "believe!" on their bodies, and many of you would still doubt it.

"Hurr hurr hurr, it's clearly just a birthmark or a specific species of lemming that got sucked up into the tornado or waterspout and then coincidentally dropped on me because of the atmospheric changes caused by the rapid molting of the ant that was really just a t-rex larva that suddenly molted because of the pheromones released by the newly awakened comatose person. Nope, still not believing in God." In cases like that, I could understand why God and His Angels would say "Yeah, this one's defective. Dump it."



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You got me laughing out loud.. thanks.

That mention of 'doubt' was meant in a different way then that of the average atheist. I should've explained myself better... or not... if people are happy I certainly don't wanna poop on their parade. Some mystic Christians have explained that I have the 'demon of ridicule' in me, but I find that a recursive argument... how can one "win?" Or better, why is that a bad thing if they're fooling themselves? The 'demon' was there in me as far back as I can remember, so if it's part of the made environs, then again, whatcha gonna do?

I'm a weird one who knows the "unseen" exists, and also knows a creative force is here/everywhere... I just can't reduce it to one man made interpretation out of a plethora, or tell myself that one series of miracles out of many is somehow the correct one... I have a deep hunch that any reality is larger than a single religion asserts, and that the quest goes a few levels up and out... and becomes less of a quest and more a relaxing ride.

But agree that if one acts in kindness and is helpful, then it's all just fine. Whatever "creams your Twinkie" as a wise soul once said.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

eta: but then, if being kind IS all that matters, following one path of many towards the same end doesn't actually matter... and most religious folks don't go that far...if they did, they wouldn't identify with one religion... so go back to top and begin argument again... heh. Respect.

etaX2: and one more general point that solidified in my empty noggin... if most man made religions have subtly and mystic truths deep in them, and I think most do, then is it a good idea for the masses to half understand them form factions and kill over them? Isn't it then more a weapon that few should use?


edit on 2/3/2016 by Baddogma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

You are an adult aren't you? Are you capable of making your own decisions or do you let someone else make them for you?

Responsibility is part of being a grown adult.

As a child you do as you are told but once you grow up.... you make your own decisions.

Sounds like you are having a problem doing this.


I was attempting to make a philosophical point about free will, in that if it (free will) was given to us, if we had no choice but to have free will, is it still free will?

Did we ever have it to begin with in such circumstances?

I'm sorry it went over your head




edit on 3-2-2016 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

No problem. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I don't believe there is only one path anyway. Or to put it differently, I think we all have different paths to walk. And as long as we don't harm others in the process, it's really none of my business.

And ironically, I think people create most of the extra hurdles in religious paths, too. The basics of most religions are very simple. But it's the theologians, religious scholars, "leaders", and powerbrokers who create the divisions that create new denominations and the such.

For example, the basic tenets of Islam are so simple that the denominational leaders had to add extra recommendations & restrictions to make themselves seem more "disciplined" or "steadfast". And a person doesn't have to know the details of Martin Luther's works or the "tenets" of Arianism to be a "Christian". In other words, I think a lot of the details in "organized religions" are just food for thought, fluff, or extra stuff that those experts aren't even sure of. Just in Islam, the different denominations can't even agree on how to pray "correctly". The Qur'an gives an extremely basic description, then the denominations use interpretations & traditions to go from there.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Heh, we're way more alike than different.

However, if it really doesn't matter... then why put on a team jersey at all? I get the distinction of personal choice and individual nuance, and one "team" might be good for some, bad for others, but... well? Why wear the shirt... at all?

I'll be in the stands betting, I guess... ; )



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: areyousirius360
Not to the people who follow them.

Does this include you?

If not, you would be incorrect once again...


originally posted by: areyousirius360
The point of calling a faith Abrahamic is to say it is descended from Abraham. Arabs are considered Ishmaelites as Jews are Israelites. Abrahamic just means the three faiths claim Abraham as patriarch, it is not anything worth writing about unless you have an agenda.


AGAIN, 100% incorrect...

Which is why I said here that the concept of “Abrahamic faiths” is a fallacy...

Anyone that believes that religion is a euphemism for mind control, (which is actually true BTW) ought to have no problem at all figuring that out.

I could not help but notice you keep saying things like:

"You don't know much."
"You know nothing about Islam."
"I don't know why you're speaking authoritatively on something your wrong about."


The irony I see here is just a little bit over the top...


This "Abrahamic faiths" thing is a fabrication of Islam as the links below pointed out, and yet you are falling for it, why?

The Myth of the Abrahamic Faiths (PDF)
The Abrahamic Fallacy (PDF)
The myth of “three Abrahamic faiths”

FYI, there ARE actually some here whose agenda revolves around the truth believe it or not...



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

And dang, Murg.. . hi, and have to mention that I'm a big fan of your avatars... lovely.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Sharted


The link shows a table showing how each version of the bible has ridiculously different translations, with many showing ZERO uses of the word hell and the 400 AD version showing 111... On a side note, in the middle ages Catholic priests would often commit suicide because they believed the afterlife would be far better than their crappy Earth life, until the Pope decided to state that suicide would mean you go to hell!

Very good questions and unfortunately cannot be answered to the satisfactions of most people.

When you say miss translations, that is often not the case. When a linguist or translator reads a language, that translator will offer his/her understanding of the reading. If he/she has other people or material to help in understanding the reading then that is more understandable but if not then it remains a case of one individuals limited knowledge.

You have to understand that there are some very brilliant people who have a vast knowledge of a language and their dictionary is astounding whereas there are others who have a very limited knowledge of the same language. You also must remember that some word meanings are lost. Let me give you an example.

Jerome chose to use the Hebrew texts instead of the Greek texts in his translation. He came upon the reading of Isaiah 14:12 but of course it was not by chapter and verse in that day of Jerome. Nevertheless as Jerome read the Hebrew --

Eth Cepher – YESHA’ YAHU – Isaiah Isa 14:12
(12) How art you fallen from heaven, O Heylel, son of the howling morning! How are you cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Jerome consulted with every source he knew to explain who "Heylel" was or is. No response was available to Jerome so Jerome inserted his own understanding of who "Heylel" was. He chose a name called Lucifer with his own understanding that this entity was a celestial creation or what we understand as an angel of the highest order.

Now compare the true translation of Hebrew to English with most renditions of the same reading. --

1611 KJV - Isa 14:12-15 -
(12) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(13) For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
(14) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
(15) Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Eth Cepher – YESHA’ YAHU – Isaiah Isa 14:12-15
(12) How art you fallen from heaven, O Heylel, son of the howling morning! How are you cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
(13) For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of EL.: I will sit also upon the Mount of assembly, in the sides of the north:
(14) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like EL ELYON.
(15) Yet you shall be brought down to She'ol, to the sides of the pit.

As you can see, Hell is not in the Hebrew dictionary and that this is Hebrew literature. So the interpreters translated this into their own understanding to the ones who would be using this translation. Now if this were to be in another era and another culture then the translators may have used an altogether different diction. The same is noted as what does it actually mean by "howling morning"? That word change alone has caused much confusion among readers and many different doctrines come from that thought alone.

Most Hebrews (Jews) have never accepted the doctrine of fallen angels such as most all Gentiles accept it as their doctrines. If angels cannot sin then you can understand why the Jews will not accept this Isaiah account as fallen angels. So now you can understand that the translators have translated the Isaiah account according to their understanding. So in lite of this you can see that we are dealing in theology and both parties (Jew and Gentile) cannot prove their doctrines. All they can do is base their translations upon their understanding.

So who is right and who is wrong in this one particular circumstance? The owners of this literature insist that the Gentiles are reading their faith into their translations. Can they prove the Gentile wrong? No they cannot prove the Gentile wrong and the Gentile cannot prove the Hebrews wrong either. It is theology and theology is not necessarily provable even within the realm of theology. So miss translation is easy to parrot but not always accurate.

My opinions of course



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369


Were we given any choice to choose? or was it imposed on us?

Well, you have it now do you not? If it were imposed upon you don't you now have the choice to change your mind? You run out of excuses when you die and till then you have choice.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Heh, we're way more alike than different.

However, if it really doesn't matter... then why put on a team jersey at all? I get the distinction of personal choice and individual nuance, and one "team" might be good for some, bad for others, but... well? Why wear the shirt... at all?

I'll be in the stands betting, I guess... ; )


Everyone has a different answer for why they do so. Though humans are also social by design, so it shouldn't be too surprising that people of similar beliefs or perspectives would congregate and then label themselves. Isn't that the whole point in clan names, tribal names, ethnic labels, nations & nationalities, etc?

Though for myself, I see all people as initially being in the same "ocean" spiritually. Some may choose to swim alone while other may choose to swim together. Some may choose to stay put, while others may choose to head for specific destinations. I like working w/others who are aiming for the same destination as I am, because we can help each other get there. Plus, they may be able to show me better ways to survive the journey, and vice versa. Maybe the answer is just that simple?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Prezbo369


Were we given any choice to choose? or was it imposed on us?

Well, you have it now do you not? If it were imposed upon you don't you now have the choice to change your mind?


That's the point I never asked for it, I never had the opportunity to decide if I wanted it or not, so can it still be considered 'free will'?


You run out of excuses when you die and till then you have choice.


Despicable god theology notwithstanding, if we were forced to have free will then there was never a choice to begin with making a mockery of the whole concept.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join