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.
Originally posted by TheColdDragon
How very Nietzschean of you.
Originally posted by checkers
If one chooses to disobey God then they will ultimately be separated from God in the afterlife. If you choose to deny God now then God will grant you your desire to be forevermore separated from God later.
God is defined through the omnific qualities presented when describing an all-powerful entity. As such, the ILLUSION of self-determinism would exist, as all possibilities are encompassed within God's foresight. From the moment of creating a human being all the way down the line through all of their descendants, God would be aware of all choices they could have made and all repurcussions from those choices... because God Designed all of those choices by creating the universe, and populating it with the souls he designed.
Originally posted by TheColdDragon
From examining the arguments presented from this side of the fence, I have noticed an insidious trend running through every perspective put forward; that being that they are emphatically against self-determinism.
In a greater sense, it is the idea that your life is in God's hands, and that there is no real free will that I surmise underlies the core currents of these arguments.
A) Pro-Life. The argument for life at conception is put forward for the sacredness of life that God has created. The result of this argument tends to present that the Woman bearing the child cannot self-determine her fate or her child's fate, that once the act is committed, no choice can exist other than to allow the life to exist as God willed it to be. Arguments for the difficulty of such choices on most females often falls on deaf ears. In the matter of Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life, Choice is not accepted as an option... and choice is the cornerstone of Self-Determination.
B) Homosexuality/Bisexuality/Transgenderism. On the one hand, Christians often put forward the argument that these states of being ARE a choice, but they are erecting an argument of condemnation; that to choose these as a choice is to become a bad person. The argument is an effort of peer pressure and utilization of the fear structure established through hell, sin, and eternal punishment. Likewise, the argument is pressaged into a seemingly conflicted argument that they care for the person who does not accept the path that the arguer has decided is right, and that Christ wants their opponent in the debate to conform to standards familiar to the arguer. This, as the Pro-Choice argument, lends itself against Self-Determination through an emotional play on loneliness. It is bad to be different, different is sinful, making sinful decisions is bad, good is making Christian decisions that do not involve embodiment of the self or being true to how you were made. You cannot embody your gender or sexual identity because that would be the wrong choice.
This argument is even more insidious when paired with the "Negative-impact on society" argument, wherein the group of people who exist in these states are considered to be the root of societies problems, to blame for the degradation of Family structure, as well as the cause for many social ills. Through making these groups the target of such thought, you again create a situation where conforming to Christian standards is viewed as the best option by the one presenting this argument. Any other choice is put forward as purposely contributing to evil in the world, though these words are rarely (if ever) used.
C) Evolution. Many of the arguments presented in contrast with the subject of Evolution from the Evangelists tend to borrow half of the scientific argument structure, making a play at half-logic. This is possibly the strongest argument put forward, largely because the evolution of Man is incomplete. However, the argument is often contributing to a false dichotomy; that being Either 6,000 years old and God OR Evolution. As a small contribution to the overall argument against self-determination, it is assumed that God exists and thusly that those who are proponents of evolution are Deceivers whose purpose is to mislead the righteous and their children.
D) Religion. For a faith that claims to pursue the example of love thy neighbor and enemy, the arguments where concerns religion are often the most heated. It is not infrequent that an Evangelist EXtian will openly criticize non-denominational Christians, Gnostics, or flavors of their own religion as vigorously as they criticize others religions. This is a holdover of the missionary mentality of spreading the good word, especially where the good word is spread to people who neither want it nor need it. This, like other things, is an insidious intolerance which gives rise to the "Persecuted" Evangelist, wondering why nobody wants to love Christ and barring the intolerance of such a tactic from their awareness. There is often no room for alternate interpretations, nor is there room for religions which do not recognize Jesus.
In this way, Self Determination is combated upon the personal front of how people identify themselves, the spiritual front in their relationship to their respective deities, the front of their decisions whereas it concerns deep impacts to their lives or others and the front of how people choose to understand the world.
This is merely the beginning thoughts of a much more convoluted examination of the Evangelist EXtian forms of argumentation, but as social conditioning goes, I feel this counts significantly as a conspiracy.
E) Sex Education. While no-one is arguing that teenage pregnancy is a good thing, the Evangelists tend to argue that it is not the public schools business to teach about sex and sexual intercourse. It is important to note that up till 200 years ago, the term teenager didn't really exist in either vernacular usage or literal. For most of the duration of Humanity's stay on the earth, and for the entire span of civilization what we term as teenagers were classified as adults.
Coming-of-Age rights existed from time immemorial attesting to this fact. What we in our civilized time classify as a secondary category of "CHILD" was considered to be an adult for all practical purposes. As such, they were responsible just as any adult was for the decisions that they made concerning their life, and they often had to live under the same harsh conditions as their parents had.
I bring this conceptualization of teenagers up because Evangelists, and even the common sensibilities brought about by Evangelists, is that Teenagers are not capable of making informed decisions or are incapable of making wise decisions at their age. It is due to note that most adults aren't very good at making capable or wise decisions, even into their 30's and I cite the housing bubble collapse as evidence.
Just as with the other examples previously noted, it is a denial of self-determination to individuals who would have been considered adults, were it not for state laws differentiating them as less-than-adults with all the impulses of adults.
Whilst the Evangelist might argue that they merely wish to fend off temptation and forgo sin for their progeny, it is important to understand what Self-Determination is in and of itself; Freedom.
That is freedom to make the mistakes in your life, freedom to err and freedom to choose for ones self.
Teenagers are often denied this sort of liberty on the grounds that they are either undeserving (Still being children), that the parent knows better (Without elaborating why), or that decision-making is a parental responsibility. Many parents will perpetuate this meme for as long as their children allow them to get away with it.
Yet just as the other subjects, there is a definite will to suppress individuation and decision-making which clashes with the religious doctrine.
Originally posted by darkelf
For the Christian, our lives are in God’s hand. Yet, we still have the choice to do what we perceive as “God’s will,” or what we selfishly want to do.
Take, for example, the story of Abraham. God promised him a son. Since his wife was well past child bearing age, Abraham took her hand maiden as his concubine. Together they had a child. But this was not God’s will. God allowed Sarah to conceive and have a child. Had Abraham been willing to wait on God, he wouldn’t have had near the problems he had by trying to do it on his own. He exercised free will, but God still kept his promise even when Abraham could not see how it could be done.
Perhaps the choice should be made before conception. If a child is going to inconvenience a woman so much that she chooses to end its life before it is born, perhaps she should either refrain from sex or use an effective contraceptive. People need to learn that their actions have consequences. If a woman is thinking about having sex with a man, she should be prepared.
The Bible states that the ONLY acceptable sexual relationship is that between a husband and his wife. Too many Christians tend to focus on homosexuality as the big sexual no-no but that is only one aspect. Even divorce is considered adultery. Perhaps they think that if they focus on someone else’s “sin,” they don’t have to focus on their own. I don’t place the word good or bad on people, only on their actions.
Religion versus relationship is the defining difference between Christians. Religion places constraints on people’s behavior. It punishes the offender. It demands conformity. People who have a relationship with God make choices based on their love for God and desire to please Him.
It is no wonder that there is no room in the lives of Christians for alternate interpretations or other religions. I am married, thus there is no room in my life for an intimate relationship with any other man. It’s not because I’m afraid of my husband, but because I love him. I make a conscious choice each time I am sexually attracted to someone.
Public schools should teach many things, including biology. Sex education is an answer from the public school system addressing the problem of teen pregnancy. This is due to parents lack of sex education at home. Baby boomers parents had the notion that simply discussing sex with their children would cause them to want to experiment sexually.
Before industrialization, many children grew up witnessing mating and birth between various farm animals. Most understood that copulation equals birth. Adequate birth control methods were not even a viable option. Young boys and girls were often married around the same time that they became sexually aware.
Men were allowed to beat their wives and children.
They were also allowed to have affairs.
Women had very little to no rights back then. Marriage became the only viable option for a woman. Virginity became an important commodity for any woman who wished for financial security. Hence morality was a requirement, not a choice.
In an age of STDs and unwanted pregnancies, teenagers need to make choices and their parents should make sure that they are well equipped to make proper choices.
Today’s teenager no longer needs to marry at a young age.
They should be focusing on education and training to prepare for adulthood. Yesterday’s teenagers were no more prepared for adulthood at 15 than today’s are. The difference, is yesterday’s teenagers had to take on an adult role early due to necessity rather than choice. Today’s teenager has more leisure time and less adult supervised time. This can lead to sexual experimentation at an early age.
Parents should teach their own moral codes to their own children.
The public school system should not be involved in teaching anything more than basic biology when it comes to sex. Many parents are just too lazy to be that involved with their own children.
Parents need to realize that by not talking to their children about sex, they are making a choice to be young grandparents. It should be up to the parent to actually parent their child rather than the public school system. Unfortunately, too many parents are so sorely lacking in that department, the public school system has had to intervene in that aspect.
Originally posted by darkelf
Teenagers are often denied this sort of liberty on the grounds that they are either undeserving (Still being children), that the parent knows better (Without elaborating why), or that decision-making is a parental responsibility. Many parents will perpetuate this meme for as long as their children allow them to get away with it.
Yet just as the other subjects, there is a definite will to suppress individuation and decision-making which clashes with the religious doctrine.
My 16 year old grandson is more mature than I was at his age, yet his 13 year old sister is much less mature than I was at her age. All teenager are not equal when it comes to their capacity to make sound decisions. Some parents have problems letting go of the decision process denying their children the right to make their own mistakes. As a parent and grandparent, I learned to pick my “fights.” In other words, there are some decisions that I insist on making and others, I’ll let them make their own.
My grown children know that there are rules in my house and they respect those rules. Just as I respect the rules of their homes. The harsh prison of some religions can cause children to rebel in ways that are more harmful than if they’d had no rules at all.
Self determination, freedom of choice, or whatever you wish to call it exists inside and outside of religion. Society, not religion, makes the laws which state when a person is considered an adult.
I marched for voting rights for 18 year olds, yet how many 18 year olds actually vote?
I remembered when the drinking age was lowered to 18, then raised back to 21. Obviously 3 years does make a difference. The point is that everyone still has the right to make whatever choices they wish to make. The wise parent, Christian or otherwise will be sure that their child has all of the resources they need when it comes to making those choices.
The error of believing that everything is already predetermined comes from confusing God as he is in himself with created time. God is not subject to our time. God is neither “before” nor “after”; God Is. In John’s Gospel, Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I Am” (John 8:58). The point of contact between God and us can only be the present moment. Someone even named God “the Eternal Now.” God did not create the universe first and then go off into his “splendid isolation.” On the contrary, by his Spirit God lives every instant of our life with us, encouraging us to lead it in harmony with his will of love. Far from being fixed in advance, God’s plan is what we create in his company minute by minute, our whole life long, by trying to respond fully to the gift of his love by a life of solidarity and service of other
Sister, actually. Yeah, they make gay people in "female" these days, what will they think of next?
As for them not being Christians... Right. And the Klan isn't white. It certainly seems, whenever a Christian does something dumb, the rest of you are awfully quick to trot out "But he's not a real Christian!" - the message from this is, of course, Christians are flawless, and people who have some sort of failing are "not really Christians."
I mean look, we have a guy, Jimmy there, and don't get me wrong, I consider him a bright guy, good poster... but he seems pretty adamant about his right to be "against" someone's sexuality. Now sure, he can go right ahead, freedom of speech and all, but, why even worry about something so trival? He probably isn't too concerned about his right to disagree with people who put ketchup on their eggs, so what makes sexuality such a big deal?
Also as I noted on another thread... In the West at least, there's no real need or desire for Christians to act in a Christly manner. In modern Christianity, the only concern of a believer is keeping their own butts out of hell. And to achieve this, all they have to do is believe they've been saved. It's a lazy, selfish philosophy that doesn't at all resemble anything Jesus ever taught about how to conduct oneself.
God is defined through the omnific qualities presented when describing an all-powerful entity. As such, the ILLUSION of self-determinism would exist, as all possibilities are encompassed within God's foresight. From the moment of creating a human being all the way down the line through all of their descendants, God would be aware of all choices they could have made and all repurcussions from those choices... because God Designed all of those choices by creating the universe, and populating it with the souls he designed.
As such, no choice can be against God's will, creating an illusion of self-determinism. The only alleviation of acceptable benevolence when considering God's existence is that God doesn't care what you do, and loves all creation equally no matter what occurs.
Elsewise, God has created situations designed specifically to damn souls that he himself created and breathed into being. While you can argue that the person has a CHOICE to obey god, no, the person only has an ILLUSION of choice because all situations are reflective of God's will and nothing is outside the scope of that will if we consider the Omnific God as proposed by common Evangelists.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
The problem with this argument is that it implies a correlation between ability and a choice to use that ability.
And here you are assuming that you know God's will.
When I was a teenager, my father had a blood clot break free from a minor wound in his leg. It lodged in his brain. (...)
God's will is not necessarily our will. God granted us a free will, and for Him to deny that would be wrong.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheColdDragon
It is a difficult concept to cogently relate, but an Omnific God embodies the entire universe. The universe exists in it's current iteration because that is what God desires to be. Mankind is in that universe, Mankind has been given free will... but an all-knowing god already knows what choices you will make in life before you are born. An all-knowing god can't NOT know.
My personal belief is disparate from the religious views popular to our times; I believe in a God that doesn't believe in Sin.
A very touching story.
I agree. That is why this topic is about Evangelism conspiring against that free will. To some, I may come across as godless with some of the ideas I propose or questions I examine... but I assure you, I'm a believer. I just walk a different line in the plan.
Originally posted by TheColdDragon
God designed all of reality, and knows all extrapolations of that reality in advance, all repurcussions for every decision or outcome.
Moreover, God also knows what choices WILL be made before they are made. Thusly, by condemning any soul, God has created them to be Condemned.
And that is why I tend not to believe in the construct of "SIN". It puts upon the idea of God undue burden and contradicts the claim that he is Beneficent.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I believe He can. By creating free will, He created something that existed within His universe, but outside His direct knowledge. How else can free will exist?
This does not mean God is not Omnipotent. He could have easily chose to know man's will. It means He chose to create something that He would not interfere with.
And you do have a point that God might not believe in sin. Perhaps that would explain why He hates sin so much. Hmmm... much to think on. Thanks for the thought fodder.
Perhaps I came across as directly attacking your beliefs, but that was not the intent. I simply saw a difference in viewpoints and responded with mine in order to examine both. That's what I do - my path.
If we are considering God to be Omnific in quality, then you have just presented an example of the Omnipotent Paradox.
Alright, let us for the sake of argument suggest god has his blinders on. God would still know that souls he creates would be doomed to hell due to the nature of their will, yet the souls are made anyways and placed into life. Thusly, God the Benevolent becomes God the clumsy and unwittingly malevolent by fashioning rules that he knows all souls will not follow.
Except for my view, the Creator neither believes in it or cares if you believe in it, because it has no affect on anything whatsoever. A God that cannot cease loving all of creation, even if it's creations hate it to the depths of their core or blaspheme against it.
It's surprising how muddy people's morals are when yours aren't mucked up by a dogma-propogated fear/reward-complex.